Model Kepimpinan

LEADERSHIP MODELS

 

A. PERSONAL TRAITS AND CHARACTERISTICS

Early leadership concentrated on the qualities that made a leader great. These theories centered on the leader’s individual characteristics or traits. It was thought that by isolating these talents or attributes that contributed to the leader’s performance, other leaders could replicate these features to improve their own leadership ability. The study of personal attributes has remained popular in leadership research. Bass (1990) notes that the quest to determine these attributes could be encapsulated into two research questions: what traits distinguish leaders from other people; and what is the extent of these differences.22

Empirical studies of leader characteristics were undertaken extensively throughout the 20^th Century, attempting to measure a wide range of variables, both objective (personal measurements) and subjective (perceptions). While these studies were voluminous and popular, some of the measurements (such as age, height and weight) have questionable explanatory value in relation to leadership. Bass (1990) notes that these early studies could categorize leadership factors into six broad groups:

• capacity (intelligence, originality, judgment);

• achievement (scholarship, knowledge);

• responsibility (initiative, confidence, desire to excel);

• participation (cooperation, humor, adaptability);

• status (position, popularity); and

• situation (mental level, needs and interests of followers, objectives).23

 

Two important points should be noted from this observation. Firstly, these six personal leadership attributes or groups are still used to describe leaders today. While the terms may have changed, the essence of these factors is still prevalent. Secondly, it was recognized that these personal characteristics could vary according to the situation.

While the trait theorists and the situational leadership theorists are viewed differently, there is recognition of the need for leaders to adapt to changing circumstances.

Some recent leadership experts have continued to develop lists of personal attributes or qualities of a leader. Kouzes and Posner (1987), in a study of over 1500 managers, note four key leadership qualities: honest, competent, forward-looking and inspiring.24

 

 There is similarity between authors, although there is no universal agreement on a core range of attributes. Bennis (1994) identifies six basic ingredients for leaders and these include:

• guiding vision;

• passion;

• integrity (which encompasses knowledge, candor and maturity);

• trust;

• curiosity; and

• daring.25

 

Bennis (1994) notes that these traits are not the ones that people are born with but the ones that can be changed. This is consistent with the rationale that leaders are made and are largely self-invented.26 Maxwell (1999) provides a more expansive list of 21 qualities, with courage, generosity, servanthood and teachability being attributes that are unique to other lists. Maxwell’s list of qualities is as follows:

• character;

• charisma;

• commitment;

• communication;

• competence;

• courage;

• discernment;

• focus;

• generosity;

• initiative;

• listening;

• passion;

• positive attitude;

• problem solving;

• relationships;

• responsibility;

• security;

• self-discipline;

• servanthood;

• teachability; and

• vision.27

 

Psychological Profiling and Psychoanalytical Theories. Psychological profiling through instruments such as the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and similar tests that help to assess an individual’s preferences have been an important tool in identifying leadership ability. These profiles attempt to identify innate preferences and generalizations about leadership capacity that can be inferred from an individual’s personality type. These instruments are popular and provide insight into an individual’s leadership potential. They are helpful in enabling the individual to understand him or herself better. The organization can also use the information as a supplementary tool to infer leadership potential. While these tests should not be used in isolation, they can be used to help identify an individual’s strengths and weaknesses.

Sigmund Freud introduced psychoanalytical theories in the 1920s that gained wide popularity in subsequent years. A central tenet of Freud’s theory is that the father of the family defined the leader’s psychological environment. Further studies (Freud and Bullitt (1932) and Wolman (1971)) have expanded on the father figure interpretation. Bass (1990) notes that strong mothers or absent fathers have also figured strongly in the development of leaders such as Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Douglas MacArthur.28

Bass (1990) notes that much of the psychoanalytical theorizing about leadership attempted to explain the leader’s political behavior from early childhood and family development.29 These theories support the notion that an individual is a product of their environment and recognize the influence of family role models.

Emotional Intelligence. The concept of emotional intelligence has received increasing attention since the publication of Goleman’s book titled “Emotional Intelligence” in 1995. The concept of emotional intelligence is based in the science of psychology and its origins can be traced back over 60 years into the late 1930s and early 1940s.30 It has been described as a form of social intelligence that involves the ability to monitor one’s own and others’ feelings and emotions, to discriminate among them, and to use this information to guide one’s own thinking and action.31 Emotional intelligence has become popular in the last decade because the concept is seen as a means to develop a more complete individual. This concept considers that individuals develop their intellect through both cognitive and emotional learning throughout their life. As the emotional intelligence competency sets draw on a broader range of personal and social attributes, the development of these characteristics may help to create more effective leaders.

Goleman provides a framework of social and emotional abilities that define emotional intelligence in terms of personal and social competency sets. This framework attempts to provide a comprehensive view of a person’s characteristics or qualities. The personal and social competencies are interdependent and are related in terms of own and others’ emotions. People with strong emotional intelligence display many of these attributes.

 

 

LEADERSHIP STYLES

Different leadership styles have been identified, as a way of explaining how the leader operates and achieves desired outcomes. The use of different leadership styles to explain discrete leadership behavior became popular during the middle of the 20^th Century. The analysis and recognition of different leadership styles is a product of the previous work focusing on personal traits and characteristics. Many of these styles are constructed in a dualistic form, where two leadership styles are contrasted. This approach gives a sense of a spectrum between each of the extremes. There is overlap between the different styles. Especially in the later research, it is recognized that no single leadership style is best for all circumstances and the approach will need to vary according to the situation.

Authoritative Versus Democratic Leadership. Leaders who are described as authoritarian or autocratic are often concerned with results and focused on short-term goals. Bass (1990) draws on the work of Lewin and Lippitt (1938), Nelson (1950), McGregor (1960), Blake and Mouton (1964) and Vroom and Yetton (1973), in describing the key features of the authoritative and democratic styles. They are likely to be lone decision makers taking responsibility for their actions and using their powers of coercion and persuasion. In certain circumstances, authoritarian leadership yields good results. However, this focus on production goals is often at the expense of the group’s needs and this style may be inappropriate for long-term growth.

Democratic leadership involves others in decision-making processes. Unlike the authoritarian leader, consultative and democratic processes seek views form others in the group. Bass (1990) notes that democratic leaders use their power to set the constraints within which the followers are encouraged to join in deciding what is to be done.41 One of the main advantages identified with democratic leadership is that it promotes loyalty and commitment in the long run.

Directive Versus Participative Leadership. Directive leadership implies that the leader takes an active role in problem solving and decision-making, and expects group members to be guided by his or her decisions.42 Directive leaders can use different strategies including reason, logic and persuasion to gain acceptance of their goals. It is likely that the directive leader will make his or her decision without consulting others either because they believe that they have all the information or time pressure prevents discussion. Directive leaders use rewards or exert pressure to gain acceptance for their actions. Bass (1990) summarizes the work of Tannenbaum and Schmidt (1958), Hersey and Blanchard (1969), Sadler and Hofstede (1972) and Vroom and Yetton (1973) among others in outlining the key features of these two leadership styles.

The participative leader involves subordinates in discussions, problem-solving and decision-making processes. This consultation can occur either individually or as a group, and results in increased autonomy of workers, power sharing, information sharing and due process. However, the participative leader is still responsible for the final decision and Bass (1990) notes that the leader remains an active member among equals.43 Participation is indicated when the subordinates’ acceptance, satisfaction, and commitment are important and when subordinates have the required information.44

Task Versus Relation-Oriented Leadership. Task-oriented leaders are concerned with the group’s achievement of goals. These leaders concentrate on performance as the most important outcome and productivity is highly valued. Such leaders may have high expectations and use various control mechanisms and supervisory layers to ensure that the task is completed satisfactorily. Task-oriented leaders may be psychologically removed from their subordinates. Bass (1990) notes that the exclusively task-oriented leader is seen to treat employees as machines, to the detriment of their commitment, growth, and morale.45 Bass (1990) further notes that task-oriented leadership can be the source of expert advice and challenging motivation for subordinates.46

Relation-oriented leaders place more concern on building effective relationships and workplace rapport throughout the group. The need for group maintenance is very important. The workplace is expected to provide encouragement and mutual support to ensure that the goals are achieved. Relation-oriented leadership is likely to contribute to the development of followers and to more mature relationships.47 This may be more beneficial in the long run. In comparing these two styles Bass (1990) draws on the work of Reddin (1977), Hersey and Blanchard (1981), Birnbrauer and Tyson (1984) and Misumi (1985). Blake and Mouton (1964) argued that maximum leadership only occurs when the leader, both highly concerned for production and highly concerned for people, integrates the human and task requirements of the job.48 Fielder’s Contingency Theory (1967) highlights that the effectiveness of task-oriented and relations-oriented leaders is contingent on the demands of the situation.49

Laissez-faire Leadership Versus Motivation to Lead. Laissez-faire leadership occurs when leaders give group members complete freedom of action, provide them with resources, and do not become actively involved in problem solving or evaluation. This style of leadership should not be confused with democratic, relations-oriented or participative leadership.50 While laissez-faire promotes relative freedom, it is not conducive to group cohesion and productivity and satisfaction suffers under this leadership style. Laissez-faire leadership is a passive style and Lewin, Lippitt and White (1939) were the first researchers to develop an understanding of this style.51

Motivation to lead is described as an active style of leadership. Active leaders promote greater satisfaction and productivity among their subordinates. The active leader can use a combination of methods such as direction and participation to achieve the goal. The involvement of subordinates is a critical aspect of this leadership style. Leaders are expected to show high energy levels and desire to improve the group and the organization.

Situational Leadership. Situational leadership models arose from the deficiencies of trait and personal characteristic theories to explain leadership phenomena. Situational leadership is linked to systems theory and attempts to consider the totality of the entity. Accurate assessment of the environment is critical for situational leadership to be successful. Hersey and Blanchard’s (1969) situational leadership model is built on previous leadership research. Bass (1990) notes that this model is based on:

 

• Leadership styles vary from leader to leader (Stogdill and Dill, 1957).

• Some leaders’ behavior involves initiating structure to accomplish tasks, other leaders behave to build and maintain good personal relationships, and still others do both or do neither (Haplin, 1956).

• The most effective behavioral style of leaders is one that varies with the situation (Fiedler, 1967; Korman, 1966).

• The best attitudinal style is a high-task and a high relations orientation (Blake and Mouton, 1964).

• The job and psychological maturity of the followers is most crucial in determining which behavioral style of leaders will result in the most effectiveness (Argyris, 1962).

• Maturity relates to the stage in a group’s life cycle or to the previous education and training of the followers.52

 

In essence, situational leadership theories are based on the premise that the leadership style will vary according to the situation prevailing. While it is more usual for theories to suggest that different situations will require changes in the leadership approach, it is also possible for leadership to change the situation. An effective leader should be able to modify his or her approach leadership style to match the present situation and then use their talents to influence the future environment.

Hersey and Blanchard’s Situational Leadership Model and Fiedler Contingency’s Model provided the foundation for much of the leadership research conducted during the 1970s (Vroom and Yetton, 1973; Schriesheim and Kerr, 1974; Hosking, 1978). Bass (1990) notes that situational leadership research has been conducted in the military. Examples include James and White’s study (1983) on the US Navy Officers and Fiedler, Bons and Hastings’s study (1975) of non-commissioned squad leaders.

More Recent Leadership Styles. Goleman et al. (2002) identify six leadership styles. These styles are visionary, coaching, affiliative, democratic, pacesetting and commanding.53 Goleman et al. (2002) note that most effective leaders act according to one or more of the six distinct approaches to leadership and skillfully switch between the various styles depending on the situation.54 This concept is similar to the earlier situational leadership styles. They further note that four of the styles (visionary, coaching, affiliative and democratic) create resonance that boosts performance while the other two styles of pacesetting and commanding should be applied with caution.55 The pacesetting style is exemplified by the leader’s high standards and demands for high performance, and should only be applied sparingly and restricted to settings where it has a high chance of success.56 The commanding style should only be applied in crisis situations to achieve short-term outcomes that demand swift and decisive action, or to deal with problem employees.

Summary. The different styles of leadership have been presented in a dualistic form. These different styles can be clustered together and as with personal trait leadership theories, there is a high degree of overlap between the different styles. It is unlikely that leaders will operate at the extremes of these styles, however it is important to recognize that leaders will move between these dichotomous states.

 

C. TRANSACTIONAL LEADERSHIP

The underlying principle of transactional leadership is that there is an exchange between the leader and the follower. The exchange usually takes the form of the follower providing services (such as labor) to the leader in exchange for a reward. The exchange should be mutually beneficial to both parties and the agreement entered into willingly and in good faith. This concept developed from other social sciences, and it assumes that rational behavior is present and that a social exchange occurs between individuals.

Early transactional theories started to emerge in the 1960s. However, it was not until the early 1970s that transactional models were widely accepted. Chemers (1997) identifies three important early transactional theories of note. First, Homans’ Theory of Elementary Social Behavior builds on the concept of social exchanges between individuals and seeks to explain that these exchanges are designed to maximize rewards and minimize costs. The principle of distributive justice is also aligned with this model to describe the need for a fair exchange to occur. In establishing these exchanges, Homans suggests that individuals will have different reward-cost structures and that they are aware of the relative fairness in such exchanges.

The second early theory is Thibaut and Kelley’s Theory of Independence, which integrates social psychological principles both as determinants of social reward value and as outcomes of social exchange.57 This theory explains why individuals choose to interact and introduces the concept of values and goals within the group. Chemers (1997) also notes that good leadership would entail fostering an atmosphere in which individual and collective goals are compatible and mutually reinforcing.58 This theory also considers the effect of power on relationships and the achievement of goals.

The third theory, equity theory was originally designed to explain motivation. However, the theory was extended to leadership theory to explain the assessment of the fairness of exchanges. J.S. Adams (1963) notes that members judge the equity of their costs and benefits in comparison to the costs and benefits of others who they view as similar to themselves.59 Equity theory states that individuals will vary their inputs and outcomes relative to others in an attempt to achieve perceived fairness. In applying this model to leadership, an individual’s commitment to a job is related to the fairness of the exchange.

Chemers (1997) also identifies two recent prominent transactional leadership theories: Hollander’s Idiosyncrasy Credit Model and Graen’s Vertical Dyadic Linkage Model. In Hollander’s model, a central theme is that leadership is a dynamic process that involves continual interpersonal evaluation by leaders and followers.60 The leader gains or earns legitimacy through the concept of idiosyncrasy credit. As leaders earn credits (through competence, trust, support) from their followers, this gives them the opportunity to innovate and introduce new strategies. If these are successful, then more credits are earned. Likewise, followers can earn credits, for work performance and implementing new ideas. This theory shows that leadership is a process of give and take underpinned by the concept that the exchange between the leader and follower is fair.

Graen’s Dyadic Linkage Model seeks to explain the superior-subordinate dyad that develops in working relationships. Chemers (1997) notes that the vertical dyadic linkage model holds that a leader and subordinates go through a role-making process in which they negotiate the terms of collaboration.61 This is particularly important in unstructured or informal tasks where job definitions and standard definitions may not apply. Exchanges can be highly differentiated within the organization. There may also be a variety of exchange options available and the idea is to find the best solution to maximize the follower’s loyalty, contribution and ingenuity. While this theory concentrates on the dyadic relationship between leader and follower, it has been recognized that group analysis is also important to consider both in-group and out-group effects on individuals and whether relative fairness is achieved.

Transactional leadership models try to explain the leader-follower relationships as processes of influence, motivation and control. The use of rewards and punishments are central to these processes and operate to condition the expected performance. These theories support the concept that behavior can be modified through rewards and punishments. Goal-setting techniques have proven to be more useful than a system of rewards and punishments. Bass (1990) notes that the leader can establish a “contract” or exchange with the subordinates by setting goals.62 Goal setting is embodied in the ‘management by objectives’ approach (Hersey, Blanchard and Hambleton (1980)) that was popular in the 1980s.63 Goal setting is more effective when the goals are developed cooperatively and the subordinate has a sense of ownership as opposed to assigned goals. While goal setting is a valid technique, self-management has become more popular. The concept of self-management builds on the ideas of personal awareness and that the individual is able to manage their own needs. Self-management involves the individual being more responsible for goals and the respective rewards.

Bass (1990) notes two main characteristics associated with transactional leadership: contingent reward and management by exception. Contingent reward implies that the reward should match the outcome achieved and it should be consistently applied. The reward scale should be established so that the notion of fairness can be recognized. Both leaders and followers should accept the inherent quality of the reward system. Management by exception allows leaders to take action for exceptional performance that is either excellent or sub-standard. It is important to note that the scale extends in both directions as opposed to concentrating only on things that go wrong. Thus, an important feature of transactional leadership is that it recognizes that exceptional positive and negative outcomes can occur.

Summary. Transactional leadership theories attempt to explain the relationships between leaders and followers. These models add the concept of exchange to the analysis of the leader’s personal characteristics and leadership styles. Exchanges should be equitable and the relationships between leaders and followers should be defined. It is not always easy to define these relationships in less structured environments. Goal setting and self-management strategies are a product of transactional leadership models.

D. TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP

Transformational leadership theory is linked to the seminal work on leadership by Burns as well as House’s early work on charismatic leadership. It builds on the transactional theories and provides a more comprehensive view of leadership. While transactional models are adequate for addressing an individual’s basic needs, Burns (1978) notes that the transformational leader also recognizes the need to satisfy a potential follower’s higher order needs (in terms of Maslow’s hierarchy (1954)) in order to engage the full person. Bass (1990) notes that transforming leadership results in mutual stimulation and elevation that converts followers into leaders and may convert leaders into moral agents.64 This is a powerful concept and infers that potential gains for both the individual and the organization are greater than for purely transactional exchanges. Bass (1990) further notes that if the follower’s higher-level needs are authentic, more leadership occurs.65 Transformational leadership recognizes that leadership is more than exchanges. Another useful distinction between transactional and transformational leaders involves the types of leaders associated with each category. Burns classifies transactional leaders as bargainers, party leaders, or executives whereas transformational leaders are leaders of reform, intellectual leaders, heroes or ideologues.66 Burns’ classification of transactional and transformational leaders shows the roles that leaders fulfill. Leaders can exhibit either transactional or transformational behavior, and can even move between the two categories. Therefore, leaders should not be considered as belonging to a single category. While Burns’ view was that leaders are either transactional or transformational, this paradigm has been modified by Bass (1990) who asserts that transformational leadership augments the effects of transactional leadership on the efforts, satisfaction and effectiveness of subordinates.67

House’s theory of charismatic leadership attempts to identify the effects of charismatic leaders on their followers. House was able to categorize elements of charismatic leadership into three groups: personal characteristics; behaviors; and situational determinants.68 Personal characteristics of self-confidence, dominance, and a strong conviction of moral righteousness are prevalent among charismatic leaders. This theory also highlights the importance of a guiding vision to the leaders and the followers, and this provides a powerful motivation, particularly when stress is prevalent. Gandhi and Martin Luther King are examples of charismatic leaders. This theory, combined with Burns’ work, laid the foundation for further research on transformational leadership in the 1980s.

Conger and Kanungo’s Behavioral Theory proposes that charisma could be explained in terms of behavior. While this theory has some similarity with House’s work, charisma is seen as a function of four variables: the difference between the present and the new state; the use of innovative and unconventional means to achieve the change; the leader’s success in assessing the environment; and how the vision is articulated and used to inspire others.69 This theory emphasizes that the leader must be credible and that communication is a key competency in achieving the change. This behavioral model builds on the transactional leadership theories.

Bass (1985) identifies four main characteristics associated with transformational leadership: charisma, inspirational motivation, intellectual simulation and individualized consideration. Charisma (idealized influence) reflects follower perceptions that the leader is extremely trustworthy and is capable of achieving an important vision.70 The concept of charisma features heavily in transformational leadership theory and it is considered to be a critical component. Inspirational motivation is related to charisma, however it implies that the leader’s vision motivates and inspires his or her followers. The articulation of the vision must capture the imagination of the followers and this is likely to enhance the likelihood of success. Intellectual stimulation encourages followers to think about the problems in new ways and encourages them to ask questions and explore possible boundaries. In this regard transformational leadership builds on the concepts of participative leadership by involving followers in the achieving the vision. It recognizes that the leader does not possess all the answers. The final aspect of individualized consideration is important to the development of the working relationship between the leader and the followers. This can be achieved through formal and informal means and can be extended into a mentoring arrangement. The use of individualized consideration recognizes that people are different and may need to be treated differently to maximize their contribution.

Summary. Transformational leadership theories build on the transactional models, and the earlier work done on personal traits and leadership styles. The concepts of charisma and vision are important and the transformational theories recognize the importance of change as a part of leadership. Transformational leaders can be found at different levels and are not necessarily restricted to the top of the hierarchy.

E. COGNITIVE LEADERSHIP MODELS

Cognitive leadership models first appeared in the late 1970s, although the concepts have links to psychology from the late 1950s with the work done by Goffman  (1959).71 Cognitive theories attempt to link cognitive psychology to previous leadership research. These theories have proven useful in understanding how a leader is perceived and in designing leadership development programs. Cognitive leadership theories about attribution, information processing and systems analysis have helped to complete some of the gaps in the body of knowledge about leadership. Chemers (1997) proposes two broad categories for cognitive theories: (1) perceptions by leaders about their followers; and (2) perceptions of leaders by followers and others.72

Attribution theories predominantly relate to the first category of cognitive theories, which are perceptions by leaders about their followers. Chemers (1997) notes that attribution theory is concerned with the processes by which people assign causes to the interpersonal events that occur around them and this postulate can be traced back to Heider (1944).73 In attribution theories, each leader and follower is seen to have his or her own implicit theory of leadership (Eden and Leviathan, 1975).74 Recent works by Kelley (1973), Green and Mitchell (1979), Shaw and Costanzo (1982), and Brown (1984) have expanded knowledge about the interaction between leaders and followers. Therefore in order to understand the leader’s behavior, it is important to assess the situation and appreciate the leader’s performance. The interaction between leaders and followers is a critical leadership dynamic. Green and Mitchell (1979) explained that a leader’s behavior relates to the leader’s interpretation of a subordinate’s performance.75 A central concept of the attribution theories is that the leader makes judgments about subordinates, including their needs, abilities and level of motivation, and consequently, the leadership approach is modified to match this assessment.

While attribution theorists have contributed to the knowledge about leader-follower interactions, some researchers (Meindl, Ehrlich and Dukerich (1985) and Pfeffer (1977)) have shown that there is a tendency to attribute more of the cause than is warranted to the subordinate rather than to the situational circumstances.76 Attribution theories have added to the knowledge of leadership by improving the understanding of the effects of the leader-follower relationship.

In the second category of cognitive models relating to the perceptions of leaders, information processing models and open systems models are prevalent. Information processing models, which are based on the work by Newell and Simon (1972) and Lord (1976), are useful for considering the environment and its signals. The information-processing model uses inputs, processes, outputs and outcomes to explain system behavior. In the information-processing model, key tasks for the leader include problem definition and group orientation. Further work by Lord and Maher (1991) provides a model of leadership perception based on information processing in either a controlled manner or as an automatic response.77 In a controlled manner, the leader processes information in rationally and logically, and draws on the individual’s cognitive abilities. Automatic processing is less structured and does not require detailed consideration. Bass (1990) notes that social cues and symbols take on more importance for an understanding of leadership in the information processing approach.78 The open systems approach builds on the information-processing model by considering the influence of the external environment and other factors that impact on the organization. These theories help to explain the multi-dimensional nature of modern leadership.

Chemers (1997) notes that the perceptions of leaders are integral to leader-follower interaction (Hollander, 1993).79 Bias is a key issue to consider in the subordinates’ perceptions of leaders. Chemers (1997) further notes that the view that perceptions of leadership processes are determined more by perceiver preconceptions than by objective reality is referred to as the “constructionist” approach.80 The underlying premise of these constructionist approaches is that if followers see an individual as a leader, then resultant positive outcomes will be attributed to the leader and failures to other environmental or situational factors beyond the leader’s control.

Chemers (1997) outlines three more radical cognitive theories: Calder’s Attribution Theory (1977); Meindl’s Romance Theory of Leadership (1990); and Dachler’s Organismic-Evolutionary Perspective (1984, 1988).81 Calder concludes that leadership is ambiguous, difficult to measure and can only be inferred by events relating to behavior. Calder’s attribute theory relates to the inferences and perceptions of leadership. Meindl develops a similar theme to that of Calder – in that it is easier to believe in leadership than to prove it.82 Meindl’s work is critical of transformational and charismatic leadership theories as these are more in line with romantic distortions about the perceptions of the individual leader.83 Dachler concentrates on group interactions and how leaders interact with group: leadership involves influencing subordinates in dyads or groups to work toward specific goals and organizational objectives.84 Calder, Meindl and Dachler reinforce the notion that leadership is complex and that a better understanding of the relationship between leaders followers is needed. Calder, Meindl and Dachler suggest that critical analysis of the inferences and perceptions between leaders and followers is an important aspect to understanding leadership.

Summary. Cognitive leadership theories have expanded knowledge about leader-follower relationships. Perceptions form a central tenet of both attribution and constructionist theories. In attribution theories, the behavior of leaders and followers combined with their interaction can be used to explain the quality of the leadership and the derived outcomes. Aspects that cannot be attributed are explained away by situational factors. Information processing and systems models concentrate on understanding the different interactions in the organizational environment.

 

F. LEADERSHIP AND THE ART OF CHANGE

Since the advent of transformational leadership theories, the concept of change has been prevalent in the leadership literature. Popular authors such as Kotter (1996), Quinn (1996), Bennis (1994), and Hesselbein (2002) have concentrated on change as a means of explaining the dilemmas facing modern leaders. The speed of change has increased over the past two decades and this has reduced the time available for leaders to react to new demands. Greater agility is expected of modern leaders. Indeed, if leaders do not respond to the new challenges, Quinn (1996) asserts that they and their organization will be faced with two options, either a slow death or a “deep change”. There is no middle ground between these options. Leaders must take responsibility for making the change occur and remaining committed to continual change.

The focus on change as a key tenet of leadership theory is not at the expense of the principles of the other leadership theories. In order for the leadership of change to be effective, leaders must know themselves, understand the application of different leadership styles to various circumstances and use the essential concepts of transactional and transformational theories. If these fundamentals are not considered, then it may be difficult to provide effective leadership to develop and sustain the required change initiatives. As with transformational leadership, leaders of change can occur at any level of the organization. This is central to Quinn’s belief that it is both individuals and organizations that are faced with the choice between slow death and deep change. Other leadership writers support this view.

The focus of the leadership change literature has been to describe change as a state of normality - that change will continue to persist. Change is characterized as large and rapid as opposed to slow, measured and incremental. With change, it is noted that subordinates and the organization will experience pain and it is the leader’s responsibility to minimize the suffering. Anderson (1998) notes that if leaders do not have the skills to be effective with their people, the change effort will likely be perceived as undesirable, and will be undermined and momentum for positive change will be lost.85 Another key component of the change literature is that personal change is a precursor to organizational change. Leaders are required to undergo personal change so that they are ready to transform the organization. This is a difficult process and requires individual commitment to improve themselves as leaders. Much of the literature deals with strategies, concepts and dilemmas faced by leaders about to embark on the change process. The literature identifies different stages and steps involved with change but it is not overly prescriptive in the definitive action to be taken. This is part of the self-discovery process.

Change is considered as non-incremental and unpredictable. In order to deal with this increased uncertainty, leaders need to be positioned ahead of the change so that they can influence the impact on their organization. The leaders are the change agents. If leaders are not attuned to their environment and fail to see the signs, then it is possible that external factors will render the organization ineffective. The importance of leaders setting the vision and articulating it to others is a central tenet. Leaders should not be involved in the day-to-day operations as these can be delegated to managers and workers. The change literature emphasizes that leaders are not confined to the organization’s hierarchy but rather are found at all levels.

Summary. The main contribution from the change leadership literature is the need for leaders to think deeply and critically about the situations that are faced by their respective organizations. This requirement is consistent with Maxwell’s criteria for leaders. The concepts of change and leadership are closely related and this relationship is consistent with Kotter’s beliefs about the differences between managers and leaders. An important facet of these theories is recognition that leaders exist at all levels and that these people can make a sizeable contribution to the organization’s welfare.

G. THE SERVANT LEADER

The concept of serving others has started to reemerge in the recent leadership literature. Greenleaf first coined the term “servant-leadership” in 1970.86 Other works notably De Pree’s “Leadership Is An Art” (1989) and Spears’ collection of essays including work by Greenleaf, Senge, Rieser and McGee-Cooper, in “Reflections on Leadership” (1995), are acclaimed as references on the subject. Conger and Benjamin (1999) note that Greenleaf’s central premise is:

A new moral principle is emerging which holds that the only authority deserving one’s allegiance is that which is freely and knowingly granted by the led to the leader in response to, and in proportion to, the clearly evident servant stature of the leader. Those who choose to follow this principle will not casually accept the authority of existing institutions. Rather, they will freely respond to only individuals who are chosen as leaders because they are proven and trusted servants. To the extent that this principle prevails in the future, the only truly viable institutions will be those that are predominantly servant-led.87

Conger and Benjamin (1999) further note that the servant-leadership model can be represented by turning the traditional hierarchical pyramid upside down thereby placing customers and employees at the top and the president and CEO at the bottom.88

This notion of leadership is strongly held by public figures (notably political and religious leaders) and military leaders. Maxwell (1999) uses General Norman Schwarzkopf as an excellent example of a servant leader.89 Maxwell (1999) further identifies five criteria for the true servant leader: puts others ahead of his own agenda, possesses the confidence to serve, initiates service to others, is not position-conscious and serves out of love.90 Servant leadership is built on trust, selflessness and a keen desire to help others. There is similarity between this concept and the desirable personal qualities of leaders. The key tenet of servant leadership is for the leader to serve others, allowing others to reach their full potential and to help the organization grow as a synergistic community. The emphasis on leaders serving their subordinates is a central tenet of Jaworski (1999). If leaders fail to meet their followers’ expectations and needs, then it makes the achievement of the vision and organizational goals difficult.

Autry (2001) identifies five conditions to be a servant leader. A leader must satisfy all five conditions to fulfill the role of servant leader. These include being authentic, being vulnerable, being accepting, being present and being useful.91 These aspects are further defined as follows. Authentic implies consistency in how a leader performs so that others see the leader as being a real person. Learning plays a vital role in this concept. Vulnerable implies that leaders are honest with their feelings about work and are prepared to admit mistakes. Acceptance relates to the accepting of good ideas with the focus being on the concept and not the person who presented it. The notion of being able to accept disagreement is a critical part. The notions of being present and useful work together to ensure that the leader’s effort are focused on serving others. Pollard (1996) notes that servant leaders provide an environment in which people can learn and grow as they work and share together.92

Other leadership writers such as Covey (1992) and Hesselbein (2002) embrace the ideals of servant leadership. The concept of “leading beyond the walls”, which has been popularized by the Drucker Foundation shows that servant leadership extends beyond the boundaries of the organization.93 Hesselbein (2002) discusses how leaders can make a significant contribution in other parts of the community. This can only happen if leaders embrace the concept of servant leadership. Astute leaders recognize that there are benefits in showing a caring and responsible attitude to the wider community.

Summary. Servant-leadership models are important in current leadership theory. Greenleaf’s concept of servant-leadership has been developed by many contemporary leadership experts and has provided alternatives to more traditional approaches including hierarchical command and control structures. The central concept is that the leader exists to serve others, and that the leader’s position and personal agenda are relatively unimportant. There is consistency in the recent servant leadership writing by Maxwell, Autry and Hesselbein.

 

H. INTEGRATIVE LEADERSHIP MODELS

Recently, there has been an effort to develop more integrated leadership models to incorporate the different leadership theories and models. There have been two broad approaches for developing more comprehensive leadership models. The first approach has been to integrate new concepts into the existing leadership paradigms. The second method has been to propose more comprehensive leadership models that reflect the complex array of interactions between leaders, followers and their organizations. These integrated models will continue to develop as the body of knowledge on leadership and related disciplines expands. This integration is consistent with the taxonomy presented earlier in the paper. A good example is the current treatment of diversity as a leadership issue. Integrative theories have started to emerge with the inclusion of diversity as a core leadership factor. Diversity concerns have been integrated into leadership theories and models as opposed to creating a new set of models. This approach has been adopted by a variety of authors including Morrison (1992), Cox (1994) and Harvey and Allard (2002). By incorporating diversity as a central leadership issue, leaders can start to build an organization that is reflective of their customer base. Hesselbein (2002) notes that diversity of gender, race, culture, and background in leadership teams strengthens and enriches organizations.94 Central concepts of diversity include building an inclusive workplace where differences are valued and can provide a competitive advantage. There is also recognition that the demographics of the customer base and the workforce are changing, and inclusive policies are needed to keep leaders and their organizations in touch with these new trends. Hesselbein (2002) defines diversity in terms of equal access and outlines a five-part process for making the concept reality.95 The steps are: a shared vision of a diverse future; a plan that realizes the vision; policies, practices and procedures that are examined at all levels to ensure full participation; asking the question “when our customers look at us, can they find themselves?”; and if the answer to the previous question is negative, repeating the process. The integration of these ideas is critical to leadership success. The second methodology involves developing more integrated leadership frameworks, which have become more prevalent in the last decade. These models present leadership as a more complex network of ideas, relationships and principles. Covey’s (1992) principle centered leadership paradigm, which examines leadership at four levels (personal, interpersonal, managerial and organizational) is an example of such a model.96 Chemers (1997) proposes an integrative model with three key zones, self-deployment, transactional relationship, and team deployment.97 Self-deployment is the orientation of leaders to the environment. Transactional relationship involves the interactions between leaders and followers, which determine the motivation, commitment and satisfaction of each group.98 The final stage is team deployment, which relates to team actions and outcomes. Hesselbein’s (2002) thoughts on leadership range from personal attributes to equal access and also include insights into organizational structure. The traditional hierarchical command and control structure is inappropriate for today’s more fluid environment. Hesselbein (2002) proposes a structure with the leader at the center not at the top or bottom of the organization.99 This allows for greater networking, knowledge sharing and learning to occur at all levels in the organization, which will be critical to future success. In a similar manner, Tichy (2002) sees that learning and teaching are vital to leadership and organizational success, where leaders and followers are involved in an interactive manner.100

Summary. The integration of ideas such as diversity into the core of leadership theory is a reflection of the importance of the issue. The incorporation of such an idea is further evidence that leadership theory is evolving and making an effort to address the needs of leaders and their organizations. Values and core beliefs need to be reexamined as leadership models become more inclusive of social factors. The development of more comprehensive models underscores the complex nature of leadership.

I. SUMMARY

Leadership is best described as a complex, multi-dimensional art. Leadership is difficult to define and is subject to a great deal of ongoing research. A useful working definition of leadership is that it is about setting a vision, challenging the status quo, energizing others, overcoming obstacles and making a difference. Interest in leadership has continued to grow throughout the last century. The development of newer theories and models has built on previous constructs, increasing our collective understanding of the topic. Many authors have proposed leadership taxonomies to classify the positions of different tenets.

The examination of leadership theories and models has shown how the body of knowledge on leadership has developed over the past century. No single leadership theory or model stands out as superior, so that leaders should attempt to apply a variety of methods as part of their leadership repertoire. Leaders must therefore determine the best model or theory for themselves and their organization and this could result in developing an organization-specific construct of leadership. It is recognized that leadership is an active field of study and that its paradigms will continue to evolve in the future. There is overlap between the respective theories and models. Subsequent theories have built on the previous body of knowledge and have incorporated new ideas into previously accepted tenets.

The emergence of change as a central issue in leadership is a feature of the contemporary literature. Change has taken on greater importance as the essence of leadership. By trying to understand change to a greater extent, contemporary models of leadership enable leaders to be more responsive to their followers and be more capable in the change process. Leadership is a human art, involving serving people, motivating, challenging and inspiring them, and satisfying their basic and higher order needs. Leadership is about give and take and trying to do the best for others.