Theory of Leadership

What is Leadership?

There are as many definitions as the authors. It’s much like democracy or love. There is an evolution in the definition of it throughout the history.

Rost has analyzed 200 definition of leadership in 1991, defined between 1900 to 1990.

In first three decades i.e. 1990–30 definition was: The ability to impress the will of leader on those led and obedience, respect, loyalty and cooperation

1930s: Trait became the focus of defining leadership, with an emerging view of leadership as influence rather than the domination. Leadership was also identified as the interaction of an individual’s specific personality traits with those of a group; it was noted that while the attitudes and activities of the many may be changed by the one, the many may influence a leader.

1940s: The group approach came into the forefront, The behavior of an individual while involved in directing group activities. At the same time, leadership by persuasion was distinguished from “drivership” or by coercion.

1950s: Three themes dominated leadership,

1. continuance of group theory, which framed leadership as what leaders do in the groups
2. leadership as a relationship that develops shared goals, which defines leadership based on the behavior of the leader.
3. Effectiveness, in which leadership was defined by the ability to influence overall group effectiveness.

1960s: acts by persons which influence other persons in a shared direction.

1970s: The group focus gave way to the organizational behavior approach, where leadership became viewed as “initiating and maintaining groups or organizations to accomplish group or organizational goals”. “Leadership is the reciprocal process of mobilizing by persons with certain motives and values, various economic, political, and other resources, in a context of competition and conflict, in order to realize goals independently or mutually held by both leaders and followers”

1980s: the number of definitions for leadership became a prolific stew with several persevering themes: • Do as the leader wishes. Leadership definitions still predominantly delivered the message that leadership is getting followers to do what the leader wants done. • Influence. Probably the most often used word in leadership definitions of the 1980s, influence was examined from every angle. In an effort to distinguish leadership from manage ment, however, scholars insisted that leadership is noncoercive influence. • Traits. Spurred by the national best seller In Search of Excellence (Peters & Waterman, 1982), the leadership-as-excellence move ment brought leader traits back to the spotlight. As a result, many people’s understanding of leadership is based on a trait orientation. • Transformation. Burns (1978) is credited for initiating a movement defining leadership as a transformational process, stating that leadership occurs “when one or more persons engage with others in such a way that leaders and followers raise one another to higher levels of motivation and morality”

21st Century: Debates on Leadership & Management are separate processes, but emerging research emphasizes the process of leadership, whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal, rather than developing new ways of defining leadership. Among these emerging leadership approaches are

1. Authentic leadership :
2. Spiritual leadership
3. Servant leadership: puts leader in the role of servant
4. Adaptive leadership: leader encourages to adapt by confronting and solving problems etc.

After decades of dissonance, leadership scholars agree on one thing: They can’t come up with a common definition for leadership.

Despite the multitude of ways in which leadership has been conceptualized, the following components can be identified as central to the phenomenon:

(a) Leadership is a process,

(b) leadership involves influence,

(c)leadership occurs in groups, and

(d) leadership involves common goals.

Trait vs Process Leadership:

We have all heard statements such as “He is born to be a leader” or “She is a natural leader. The trait perspective suggests that certain individuals have special innate or inborn characteristics or qualities that make them leaders, and that it is these qualities that differentiate them from nonleaders.

A unique perspective on leadership emergence is provided by social identity theory (Hogg, 2001). From this perspective, leadership emergence is the degree to which a person fits with the identity of the group as a whole. As groups develop over time, a group prototype also develops. Individuals emerge as leaders in the group when they become most like the group pro totype. Being similar to the prototype makes leaders attractive to the group and gives them influence with the group.

Assumptions of Trait Theory:

The main assumptions of this theory are that leaders are born with certain traits that distinguish them from non-leaders, and these traits are consistent predictors of leadership effectiveness. Key traits identified include intelligence, self-confidence, determination, integrity, and sociability.

• Intelligence: The ability to think critically, solve problems, and make informed decisions.
• Self-confidence: Belief in one’s abilities and judgment, which inspires confidence in others.
• Determination: Persistence and drive to achieve goals despite obstacles.
• Integrity: Adherence to moral and ethical principles, earning trust and respect from followers.
• Sociability: The ability to build positive relationships, communicate effectively, and work well with others

Strength & limitations of Trait theory

Trait theory’s strengths include its intuitiveness and historical significance in leadership studies. It provides a straightforward framework for identifying potential leaders based on observable traits. However, its limitations are significant: it overlooks the influence of situational factors, assumes that leadership traits are universally effective, and does not account for the development of leadership skills over time. Additionally, empirical research has shown that possessing certain traits does not guarantee leadership success in all contexts.

Situational factors play a crucial role in determining the effectiveness of leadership traits. Traits alone cannot guarantee leadership success because different situations require different leadership approaches. For example, a highly intelligent leader might excel in a strategic planning context but struggle in a crisis requiring quick, decisive action. Thus, while traits are important, their impact is moderated by situational variables, making a more holistic approach necessary for understanding leadership effectiveness