Great man theory

Are some people born to lead? If we look at the great

leaders of the past such as Alexander the Great, Julius
Caesar, Napoleon, Queen Elizabeth I, and Abraham
Lincoln, we will find that they do seem to differ from
ordinary human beings in several aspects. The same
applies to the contemporary leaders like George W.
Bush and Mahatma Gandhi. They definitely possess high
levels of ambition coupled with clear visions of precisely
where they want to go. These leaders are cited as
naturally great leaders, born with a set of personal
qualities that made them effective leaders. Even today,
the belief that truly great leaders are born is common.
Top executives, sports personalities, and even
politicians often seem to possess an aura that sets them
apart from others. According to the contemporary
theorists, leaders are not like other people. They do not
need to be intellectually genius or omniscient prophets
to succeed, but they definitely should have the right
stuff which is not equally present in all people. This
orientation expresses an approach to the study of
leadership known as the great man theory.
Assumptions
The leaders are born and not made and posses
certain traits which were inherited
Great leaders can arise when there is a great
need.
Theory
Much of the work on this theory was done in the 19th
century and is often linked to the work of the historian
Thomas Carlyle who commented on the great men or
heroes of the history saying that the history of the
world is but the biography of great men. According to
him, a leader is the one gifted with unique qualities that
capture the imagination of the masses.
Earlier leadership was considered as a quality
associated mostly with the males, and therefore the
theory was named as the great man theory. But later
with the emergence of many great women leaders as
well, the theory was recognized as the great person
theory.
The great man theory of leadership states that some
people are born with the necessary attributes that set
them apart from others and that these traits are
responsible for their assuming positions of power and
authority. A leader is a hero who accomplishes goals
against all odds for his followers. The theory implies
that those in power deserve to be there because of
their special endowment. Furthermore, the theory
contends that these traits remain stable over time and
across different groups. Thus, it suggests that all great
leaders share these characteristic regardless of when
and where they lived or the precise role in the history
they fulfilled.
Criticism
Many of the traits cited as being important to be an
effective leader are typical masculine traits. In
contemporary research, there is a significant shift in
such a mentality.
Conclusion
Prompted by the great man theory of leadership, and
the emerging interest in understanding what leadership
is, researchers focused on the leader - Who is a leader?
What are the distinguishing characteristics of great and
effective leaders? This gave rise to the early research
efforts to the trait approach to leadership.

Trait Theory of Leadership
The trait model of leadership is based on the
characteristics of many leaders - both successful and
unsuccessful - and is used to predict leadership
effectiveness. The resulting lists of traits are then
compared to those of potential leaders to assess their
likelihood of success or failure.
Scholars taking the trait approach attempted to identify
physiological (appearance, height, and weight),
demographic (age, education and socioeconomic
background), personality, self-confidence, and
aggressiveness), intellective (intelligence, decisiveness,
judgment, and knowledge), task-related (achievement
drive, initiative, and persistence), and social
characteristics (sociability and cooperativeness) with
leader emergence and leader effectiveness.
Successful leaders definitely have interests, abilities,
and personality traits that are different from those of
the less effective leaders. Through many researches
conducted in the last three decades of the 20th century,
a set of core traits of successful leaders have been
identified. These traits are not responsible solely to
identify whether a person will be a successful leader or
not, but they are essentially seen as preconditions that
endow people with leadership potential.
Among the core traits identified are:
Achievement drive: High level of effort, high
levels of ambition, energy and initiative
Leadership motivation: an intense desire to lead
others to reach shared goals
Honesty and integrity: trustworthy, reliable, and
open
Self-confidence: Belief in ones self, ideas, and
ability
Cognitive ability: Capable of exercising good
judgment, strong analytical abilities, and
conceptually skilled
Knowledge of business: Knowledge of industry
and other technical matters
Emotional Maturity: well adjusted, does not
suffer from severe psychological disorders.
Others: charisma, creativity and flexibility
Strengths/Advantages of Trait Theory
It is naturally pleasing theory.
It is valid as lot of research has validated the
foundation and basis of the theory.
It serves as a yardstick against which the
leadership traits of an individual can be
assessed.
It gives a detailed knowledge and
understanding of the leader element in the
leadership process.
Limitations of The Trait Theory
There is bound to be some subjective judgment
in determining who is regarded as a good or
successful leader
The list of possible traits tends to be very long.
More than 100 different traits of successful
leaders in various leadership positions have
been identified. These descriptions are simply
generalities.
There is also a disagreement over which traits
are the most important for an effective leader
The model attempts to relate physical traits
such as, height and weight, to effective
leadership. Most of these factors relate to
situational factors. For example, a minimum
weight and height might be necessary to
perform the tasks efficiently in a military
leadership position. In business organizations,
these are not the requirements to be an
effective leader.
The theory is very complex
Implications of Trait Theory
The trait theory gives constructive information about
leadership. It can be applied by people at all levels in all
types of organizations. Managers can utilize the
information from the theory to evaluate their position
in the organization and to assess how their position can
be made stronger in the organization. They can get an
in-depth understanding of their identity and the way
they will affect others in the organization. This theory
makes the manager aware of their strengths and
weaknesses and thus they get an understanding of how
they can develop their leadership qualities.
Conclusion
The traits approach gives rise to questions: whether
leaders are born or made; and whether leadership is an
art or science. However, these are not mutually
exclusive alternatives. Leadership may be something of
an art; it still requires the application of special skills
and techniques. Even if there are certain inborn
qualities that make one a good leader, these natural
talents need encouragement and development. A
person is not born with self-confidence. Self-confidence
is developed, honesty and integrity are a matter of
personal choice, motivation to lead comes from within
the individual, and the knowledge of business can be
acquired. While cognitive ability has its origin partly in
genes, it still needs to be developed. None of these
ingredients are acquired overnight.

Gordon Allport was an early pioneer in the study of
traits, which he sometimes referred to as dispositions.
In his approach, central traits are basic to an individual's
personality, whereas secondary traits are more
peripheral. Common traits are those recognized within
a culture and may vary between cultures. Cardinal
traits are those by which an individual may be strongly
recognized. Since Allport's time, trait theorists have
focused more on group statistics than on single
individuals. Allport called these two emphases
"nomothetic" and "idiographic," respectively.

Leadership-Member Exchange (LMX) Theory
Informal observation of leadership behavior suggests
that leaders action is not the same towards all
subordinates. The importance of potential differences
in this respect is brought into sharp focus by Graens
leader-member exchange model, also known as the
vertical dyad linkage theory. The theory views
leadership as consisting of a number of dyadic
relationships linking the leader with a follower. The
quality of the relationship is reflected by the degree of
mutual trust, loyalty, support, respect, and obligation.
According to the theory, leaders form different kinds of
relationships with various groups of subordinates. One
group, referred to as the in-group, is favored by the
leader. Members of in-group receive considerably more
attention from the leader and have more access to the
organizational resources. By contrast, other
subordinates fall into the out-group. These individuals
are disfavored by the leader. As such, they receive
fewer valued resources from their leaders.
Leaders distinguish between the in-group and out-
group members on the basis of the perceived similarity
with respect to personal characteristics, such as age,
gender, or personality. A follower may also be granted
an in-group status if the leader believes that person to
be especially competent at performing his or her job.
The relationship between leaders and followers follows
three stages:
Role taking: When a new member joins the
organization, the leader assesses the talent and
abilities of the member and offers them
opportunities to demonstrate their capabilities.
Role making: An informal and unstructured
negotiation on work-related factors takes place
between the leader and the member. A
member who is similar to the leader is more
likely to succeed. A betrayal by the member at
this stage may result in him being relegated to
the out-group
The LMX 7 scale assesses the degree to which leaders
and followers have mutual respect for each others
capabilities, feel a deepening sense of mutual trust, and
have a sense of strong obligation to one another. Taken
together, these dimensions determine the extent to
which followers will be part of the leaders in-group or
out-group.
In-group followers tend to function as assistants or
advisers and to have higher quality personalized
exchanges with the leader than do out-group followers.
These exchanges typically involve a leaders emphasis
on assignments to interesting tasks, delegation of
important responsibilities, information sharing, and
participation in the leaders decisions, as well as special
benefits, such as personal support and support and
favorable work schedules.
Strengths of LMX Theory

LMX theory is an exceptional theory of leadership
as unlike the other theories, it concentrates and
talks about specific relationships between the
leader and each subordinate.

LMX Theory is a robust explanatory theory.

LMX Theory focuses our attention to the
significance of communication in leadership.
Communication is a medium through which leaders
and subordinates develop, grow and maintain
beneficial exchanges. When this communication is
accompanied by features such as mutual trust,
respect and devotion, it leads to effective
leadership.

LMX Theory is very much valid and practical in its
approach.
Criticisms of LMX Theory

LMX Theory fails to explain the particulars
of how high-quality exchanges are created.

LMX Theory is objected on grounds of
fairness and justice as some followers
receive special attention of leaders at
workplace and other followers do not.
Implications
According to many studies conducted in this area,
it has been found that leaders definitely do support
the members of the in-group and may go to the
extent of inflating their ratings on poor
performance as well. This kind of a treatment is not
given to the members of the out-group. Due to the
favoritism that the in-group members receive from
their leaders, they are found to perform their jobs
better and develop positive attitude towards their
jobs in comparison to the members of the out-
group. The job satisfaction of in-group members is
high and they perform effectively on their jobs.
They tend to receive more mentoring from their
superiors which helps them in their careers. For
these reasons, low attrition rate, increased salaries,
and promotion rates are associated with the in-
group members in comparison to that of the out-
group members.
How to use the theory: When joining a team, it is
important to join the inner circle, take on more
than your share of administrative and other tasks
in order to gain trust from your leaders.
The quality of the LMX relationship varies. It is
most efficient on one of the two ends of the
spectrum in terms of extremities: either extremely
low or extremely high. The size of the group,
financial resource availability and the overall
workload are also important. The theory can also
work upwards as well. The leader can gain power
by being a member of his or her manager's inner
circle, which the leader can then share with
subordinates.
The Leader-Member Exchange Theory can be
utilized outside of the workplace. It can be applied
to group projects for school, clubs, etc. By using
LMX in such circumstances, you can learn more
about how you see your team members. First, you
must determine who your out-group consists of.
When you do this you have to make sure you know
how they ended up under this title. Compare facts
with your perception of the events. The next step
you must take requires you to re-establish the
relationship with those in the out-group. In doing
so, you will gain respect as a leader. It may also
boost morale for those members of the out-group.
However, make a mental note that those members
will have their guards up at first when you try to
give your support to them. Make it sincere by
approaching each member one-on-one. Take time
to get to know a little more about them. This can
also help you learn more about what drives them.
From that point on, try to keep the reconnection
going by keeping in touch with those members.
Make an effort to offer your guidance on any of
their tasks if they need assistance. Your third and
final step to apply the Leader-Member Exchange
Theory is to offer some form of mentoring or
coaching. This allows a type of opportunity for the
member to advance in the group. Start first with
low risk assignments

Transformational Leadership Theory
Creating high-performance workforce has become
increasingly important and to do so business
leaders must be able to inspire organizational
members to go beyond their task requirements. As
a result, new concepts of leadership have emerged
- transformational leadership being one of them.
Transformational leadership may be found at all
levels of the organization: teams, departments,
divisions, and organization as a whole. Such leaders
are visionary, inspiring, daring, risk-takers, and
thoughtful thinkers. They have a charismatic
appeal. But charisma alone is insufficient for
changing the way an organization operates. For
bringing major changes, transformational leaders
must exhibit the following four factors:
Inspirational Motivation: The foundation of
transformational leadership is the promotion of
consistent vision, mission, and a set of values to
the members. Their vision is so compelling that
they know what they want from every interaction.
Transformational leaders guide followers by
providing them with a sense of meaning and
challenge. They work enthusiastically and
optimistically to foster the spirit of teamwork and
commitment.
Intellectual Stimulation: Such leaders encourage
their followers to be innovative and creative. They
encourage new ideas from their followers and
never criticize them publicly for the mistakes
committed by them. The leaders focus on the
what in problems and do not focus on the
blaming part of it. They have no hesitation in
discarding an old practice set by them if it is found
ineffective.
Idealized Influence: They believe in the philosophy
that a leader can influence followers only when he
practices what he preaches. The leaders act as role
models that followers seek to emulate. Such
leaders always win the trust and respect of their
followers through their action. They typically place
their followers needs over their own, sacrifice their
personal gains for them, ad demonstrate high
standards of ethical conduct. The use of power by
such leaders is aimed at influencing them to strive
for the common goals of the organization.
Individualized Consideration: Leaders act as
mentors to their followers and reward them for
creativity and innovation. The followers are treated
differently according to their talents and
knowledge. They are empowered to make
decisions and are always provided with the needed
support to implement their decisions.
The common examples of transformational leaders
are Mahatma Gandhi and Obama.
Criticisms of Transformational Leadership Theory
Transformational leadership makes use of
impression management and therefore
lends itself to amoral self promotion by
leaders
The theory is very difficult to e trained or
taught because it is a combination of many
leadership theories.
Followers might be manipulated by leaders
and there are chances that they lose more
than they gain.
Implications of Transformational Leadership
Theory
The current environment characterized by
uncertainty, global turbulence, and organizational
instability calls for transformational leadership to
prevail at all levels of the organization. The
followers of such leaders demonstrate high levels
of job satisfaction and organizational commitment,
and engage in organizational citizenship behaviors.
With such a devoted workforce, it will definitely be
useful to consider making efforts towards
developing ways of transforming organization
through leadership.
The concept of transformational leadership was
initially introduced by leadership expert and
presidential biographer James MacGregor Burns.
According to Burns, transformational leadership
can be seen when "leaders and followers make
each other to advance to a higher level of morality
and motivation." Through the strength of their
vision and personality, transformational leaders are
able to inspire followers to change expectations,
perceptions, and motivations to work towards
common goals.Unlike in the transactional
approach, it is not based on a "give and take"
relationship, but on the leader's personality, traits
and ability to make a change through example,
articulation of an energizing vision and challenging
goals. Transforming leaders are idealized in the
sense that they are a moral exemplar of working
towards the benefit of the team, organization
and/or community. Burns theorized that
transforming and transactional leadership were
mutually exclusive styles.Later, researcher Bernard
M. Bass expanded upon Burns' original ideas to
develop what is today referred to as Bass
Transformational Leadership Theory. According to
Bass, transformational leadership can be defined
based on the impact that it has on followers.
Transformational leaders, Bass suggested, garner
trust, respect, and admiration from their followers
Bernard M. Bass (1985), extended the work of
Burns (1978) by explaining the psychological
mechanisms that underlie transforming and
transactional leadership. Bass introduced the term
"transformational" in place of "transforming." Bass
added to the initial concepts of Burns (1978) to
help explain how transformational leadership could
be measured, as well as how it impacts follower
motivation and performance.
[1]
The extent to
which a leader is transformational, is measured
first, in terms of his influence on the followers. The
followers of such a leader feel trust, admiration,
loyalty and respect for the leader and because of
the qualities of the transformational leader are
willing to work harder than originally expected.
These outcomes occur because the
transformational leader offers followers something
more than just working for self gain; they provide
followers with an inspiring mission and vision and
give them an identity. The leader transforms and
motivates followers through his or her idealized
influence (earlier referred to as charisma),
intellectual stimulation and individual
consideration. In addition, this leader encourages
followers to come up with new and unique ways to
challenge the status quo and to alter the
environment to support being successful. Finally, in
contrast to Burns, Bass suggested that leadership
can simultaneously display both transformational
and transactional leadership.

Transactional Leadership Theory
The transactional style of leadership was first
described by Max Weber in 1947 and then by
Bernard Bass in 1981. This style is most often used
by the managers. It focuses on the basic
management process of controlling, organizing,
and short-term planning. The famous examples of
leaders who have used transactional technique
include McCarthy and de Gaulle.
Transactional leadership involves motivating and
directing followers primarily through appealing to
their own self-interest. The power of transactional
leaders comes from their formal authority and
responsibility in the organization. The main goal of
the follower is to obey the instructions of the
leader. The style can also be mentioned as a
telling style.
The leader believes in motivating through a
system of rewards and punishment. If a
subordinate does what is desired, a reward will
follow, and if he does not go as per the wishes of
the leader, a punishment will follow. Here, the
exchange between leader and follower takes place
to achieve routine performance goals.
These exchanges involve four dimensions:
Contingent Rewards: Transactional leaders link the
goal to rewards, clarify expectations, provide
necessary resources, set mutually agreed upon
goals, and provide various kinds of rewards for
successful performance. They set SMART (specific,
measurable, attainable, realistic, and timely) goals
for their subordinates.
Active Management by Exception: Transactional
leaders actively monitor the work of their
subordinates, watch for deviations from rules and
standards and taking corrective action to prevent
mistakes.
Passive Management by Exception: Transactional
leaders intervene only when standards are not met
or when the performance is not as per the
expectations. They may even use punishment as a
response to unacceptable performance.
Laissez-faire: The leader provides an environment
where the subordinates get many opportunities to
make decisions. The leader himself abdicates
responsibilities and avoids making decisions and
therefore the group often lacks direction.
Assumptions of Transactional Theory
Employees are motivated by reward and
punishment.
The subordinates have to obey the orders
of the superior.
The subordinates are not self-motivated.
They have to be closely monitored and
controlled to get the work done from
them.
Implications of Transactional Theory
The transactional leaders overemphasize detailed
and short-term goals, and standard rules and
procedures. They do not make an effort to enhance
followers creativity and generation of new ideas.
This kind of a leadership style may work well where
the organizational problems are simple and clearly
defined. Such leaders tend to not reward or ignore
ideas that do not fit with existing plans and goals.
The transactional leaders are found to be quite
effective in guiding efficiency decisions which are
aimed at cutting costs and improving productivity.
The transactional leaders tend to be highly
directive and action oriented and their relationship
with the followers tends to be transitory and not
based on emotional bonds.
The theory assumes that subordinates can be
motivated by simple rewards. The only
transaction between the leader and the followers
is the money which the followers receive for their
compliance and effort.
Conclusion
The transactional style of leadership is viewed as
insufficient, but not bad, in developing the
maximum leadership potential. It forms as the
basis for more mature interactions but care should
be taken by leaders not to practice it exclusively,
otherwise it will lead to the creation of an
environment permeated by position, power, perks,
and politics.
In an experimental study conducted on the
relationship between leaders' moral reasoning
and subordinates' perceptions of leadership
behaviors in three organizational samples drawn
from two countries. Kohlberg (1969, 1976) initially
proposed a stage theory of cognitive moral
development to explain how people think (or
reason) about interacting with their social
environment. He argued that people's present
moral capacity incorporates problem-solving
strategies learned at earlier stages. The data
used in this study were collected by
questionnaire from one organization in Canada
Data collection for sample 1. two organizations in
the United Kingdom Sample was drawn from a
mid-sized Canadian university and consisted of
middle-level managers ( n = 64) and
subordinates ( n = 185) in clerical and
administrative posts who rated these managers.
Data collection for (Samples 2 and 3). He found
that, 132 leaders and 407 subordinates
participated in this study. Data for Sample 2 were
collected at a large telecommunications company
in the United Kingdom. Raters in this sample
were subordinates working in technical support
and customer service ( n = 136) who described
their middle-level managers ( n = 43). Sample 3
consisted of hospital ward managers ( n = 25)
and their subordinate nurses ( n = 86) working in
a mid-sized hospital in the United Kingdom.

Contingency Theories (1960's)
The Contingency Leadership theory argues that
there is no single way of leading and that every
leadership style should be based on certain
situations, which signifies that there are certain
people who perform at the maximum level in
certain places; but at minimal performance when
taken out of their element.
To a certain extent contingency leadership theories
are an extension of the trait theory, in the sense
that human traits are related to the situation in
which the leaders exercise their leadership. It is
generally accepted within the contingency theories
that leader are more likely to express their
leadership when they feel that their followers will
be responsive.