Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Leadership
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Leader" redirects here. For other uses, see Leader (disambiguation).
For other uses, see Leadership (disambiguation).
This article needs
additional citations for verification.
Please help improve this article by adding reliable references.
Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.(September 2009)
• 1 Theories of leadership
o 1.1 Trait Theory
1.1.1 Early History
1.1.2 The Rise of Alternative Leadership
Theories
1.1.3 The Reemergence of the Trait Theory
1.1.4 Current Criticisms of the Trait Theory
1.1.5 Leader Attribute Pattern Approach
o 1.2 Behavioral and style theories
o 1.3 Situational and contingency theories
o 1.4 Functional theory
o 1.5 Transactional and transformational theories
o 1.6 Leadership and emotions
o 1.7 Environmental leadership theory
• 2 Leadership styles
o 2.1 Kurt Lewin's Leadership styles
2.1.1 Dictator Leaders
2.1.2 Autocratic or Authoritarian Leaders
2.1.3 Participative or Democratic Leaders
2.1.4 Laissez Faire or Free Rein Leaders
• 3 Leadership performance
• 4 Contexts of leadership
o 4.1 Leadership in organizations
o 4.2 Leadership versus management
o 4.3 Leadership by a group
o 4.4 Leadership among primates
• 5 Historical views on leadership
• 6 Action Oriented Team Leadership Skills
• 7 Titles emphasizing authority
• 8 Critical Thought on the concept of leadership
• 9 See also
• 10 References
• 11 External links
[edit]Theories of leadership
Students of leadership have produced theories involving traits [4],
situational interaction, function, behavior, power, vision and values [5],
charisma, and intelligence among others.
[edit]Trait Theory
Trait theory tries to describe the characteristics associated with
effective leadership.
[edit]Early History
The search for the characteristics or traits of leaders has been
ongoing for centuries. History’s greatest philosophical writings
from Plato’sRepublic to Plutarch’s Lives have explored the
question of “What qualities distinguish an individual as a leader?”
Underlying this search was the early recognition of the
importance of leadership and the assumption that leadership is
rooted in the characteristics that certain individuals possess. This
idea that leadership is based on individual attributes is known as
the “trait theory of leadership.”
intelligence[13]
adjustment[14]
extraversion[15]
conscientiousness[16][17][18]
openness to experience[19][20]
general self-efficacy[21][22]
Dictator
Autocratic
Participative
Laissez Faire
[edit]Dictator Leaders
A leader who uses fear and threats to get
the jobs done. As similar with a leader
who uses an autocratic style of
leadership, this style of leader also
makes all the decisions.
[edit]Autocratic or Authoritarian
Leaders
Under the autocratic leadership styles, all
decision-making powers are centralized
in the leader as shown such leaders are
dictators.
They do not entertain any suggestions or
initiative from subordinates. The
autocratic management has been
successful as it provides strong
motivation to the manager. It permits
quick decision-making as only one
person decides for the whole group, and
keeps it to themselves until they feel it is
needed by the rest of the group. An
autocratic leader does not trust anybody.
[edit]Participative or Democratic
Leaders
The democratic leadership style favors
decision-making by the group as shown,
such as leader gives instruction after
consulting the group.
He can win the cooperation of his group
and can motivate them effectively and
positively. The decisions of the
democratic leader are not unilateral as
with the autocrat because they arise from
consultation with the group members and
participation by them.
[edit]Laissez Faire or Free Rein
Leaders
A free rein leader does not lead, but
leaves the group entirely to itself as
shown; such a leader allows maximum
freedom to subordinates.
They are given a freehand in deciding
their own policies and methods. Free rein
leadership style is considered better than
the authoritarian style. But it is not as
effective as the democratic style.[citation
needed]
[edit]Leadership performance
Main article: Leadership Performance
In the past, some researchers have
argued that the actual influence of
leaders on organizational outcomes is
overrated and romanticized as a result of
biased attributions about leaders (Meindl
& Ehrlich, 1987). Despite these
assertions however, it is largely
recognized and accepted by practitioners
and researchers that leadership is
important, and research supports the
notion that leaders do contribute to key
organizational outcomes (Day & Lord,
1988; Kaiser, Hogan, & Craig, 2008). In
order to facilitate successful performance
it is important to understand and
accurately measure leadership
performance.
Job performance generally refers to
behavior that is expected to contribute to
organizational success (Campbell, 1990).
Campbell identified a number of specific
types of performance dimensions;
leadership was one of the dimensions
that he identified. There is no consistent,
overall definition of leadership
performance (Yukl, 2006). Many distinct
conceptualizations are often lumped
together under the umbrella of
leadershipperformance, including
outcomes such as leader effectiveness,
leader advancement, and leader
emergence (Kaiser et al., 2008). For
instance, leadership performance may be
used to refer to the career success of the
individual leader, performance of the
group or organization, or even leader
emergence. Each of these measures can
be considered conceptually distinct.
While these aspects may be related, they
are different outcomes and their inclusion
should depend on the applied/research
focus.
[edit]Contexts of leadership
[edit]Leadership in
organizations
An organization that is established as
an instrument or means for achieving
defined objectives has been referred to
as a formal organization. Its design
specifies how goals are subdivided and
reflected in subdivisions of the
organization. Divisions, departments,
sections, positions, jobs, and tasks make
up this work structure. Thus, the formal
organization is expected to behave
impersonally in regard to relationships
with clients or with its members.
According to Weber's definition, entry
and subsequent advancement is by merit
or seniority. Each employee receives a
salary and enjoys a degree of tenure that
safeguards him from the arbitrary
influence of superiors or of powerful
clients. The higher his position in the
hierarchy, the greater his presumed
expertise in adjudicating problems that
may arise in the course of the work
carried out at lower levels of the
organization. It is this bureaucratic
structure that forms the basis for the
appointment of heads or chiefs of
administrative subdivisions in the
organization and endows them with the
authority attached to their position.[56]
In contrast to the appointed head or chief
of an administrative unit, a leader
emerges within the context of
the informal organization that underlies
the formal structure. The informal
organization expresses the
personal objectives and goals of the
individual membership. Their objectives
and goals may or may not coincide with
those of the formal organization. The
informal organization represents an
extension of the social structures that
generally characterize human life — the
spontaneous emergence of groups and
organizations as ends in themselves.
In prehistoric times, man was
preoccupied with his personal security,
maintenance, protection, and survival.
Now man spends a major portion of his
waking hours working for organizations.
His need to identify with a community
that provides security, protection,
maintenance, and a feeling of belonging
continues unchanged from prehistoric
times. This need is met by the informal
organization and its emergent, or
unofficial, leaders.[57]
Leaders emerge from within the structure
of the informal organization. Their
personal qualities, the demands of the
situation, or a combination of these and
other factors attract followers who accept
their leadership within one or several
overlay structures. Instead of the
authority of position held by an appointed
head or chief, the emergent leader wields
influence or power. Influence is the ability
of a person to gain co-operation from
others by means of persuasion or control
over rewards. Power is a stronger form of
influence because it reflects a person's
ability to enforce action through the
control of a means of punishment.[57]
A leader is a person who influences a
group of people towards a specific result.
It is not dependent on title or formal
authority. (elevos, paraphrased from
Leaders, Bennis, and Leadership
Presence, Halpern & Lubar). Leaders are
recognized by their capacity for caring for
others, clear communication, and a
commitment to persist.[58] An individual
who is appointed to a managerial position
has the right to command and enforce
obedience by virtue of the authority of his
position. However, he must possess
adequate personal attributes to match his
authority, because authority is only
potentially available to him. In the
absence of sufficient personal
competence, a manager may be
confronted by an emergent leader who
can challenge his role in the organization
and reduce it to that of a figurehead.
However, only authority of position has
the backing of formal sanctions. It follows
that whoever wields personal influence
and power can legitimize this only by
gaining a formal position in the hierarchy,
with commensurate authority.
[57]
Leadership can be defined as one's
ability to get others to willingly follow.
Every organization needs leaders at
every level.[59]
[edit]Leadership versus
management
Over the years the philosophical
terminology of "management" and
"leadership" have, in the organisational
context, been used both as synonyms
and with clearly differentiated meanings.
Debate is fairly common about whether
the use of these terms should be
restricted, and generally reflects an
awareness of the distinction made by
Burns (1978) between "transactional"
leadership (characterised by eg
emphasis on procedures, contingent
reward, management by exception) and
"transformational" leadership
(characterised by eg charisma, personal
relationships, creativity). That those two
adjectives are in fact used equally well
with the noun "management" as with the
noun "leadership" indicates that there is
such a messy overlap between the two in
academic practice that attempts to
pontificate about their differences are
largely a waste of time.
[edit]Leadership by a group
This subsection does
not cite any references
or sources.
Please help improve this
article by adding citations
to reliable sources. Unsourced
material may
be challenged andremoved. (S
eptember 2009)
[edit]Leadership among
primates
Richard Wrangham and Dale Peterson,
in Demonic Males: Apes and the Origins
of Human Violence present evidence that
only humans andchimpanzees, among all
the animals living on earth, share a
similar tendency for a cluster of
behaviors: violence, territoriality,
and competitionfor uniting behind the one
chief male of the land.[63] This position is
contentious. Many animals beyond apes
are territorial, compete, exhibit violence,
and have a social structure controlled by
a dominant male (lions, wolves, etc.),
suggesting Wrangham and Peterson's
evidence is not empirical. However, we
must examine other species as well,
including elephants (which are
undoubtedly matriarchal and follow an
alpha female), meerkats (who are
likewise matriarchal), and many others.
It would be beneficial, to examine that
most accounts of leadership over the
past few millennia (since the creation of
Christian religions) are through the
perspective of a patriarchal society,
founded on Christian literature. If one
looks before these times, it is noticed that
Pagan and Earth-based tribes in fact had
female leaders. It is important also to
note that the peculiarities of one tribe
cannot necessarily be ascribed to
another, as even our modern-day
customs differ. The current day patrilineal
custom is only a recent invention in
human history and our original method of
familial practices were matrilineal (Dr.
Christopher Shelley and Bianca Rus,
UBC). The fundamental assumption that
has been built into 90% of the world's
countries is that patriarchy is the 'natural'
biological predisposition of homo
sapiens. Unfortunately, this belief has led
to the widespread oppression of women
in all of those countries, but in varying
degrees. (Whole Earth Review, Winter,
1995 by Thomas Laird, Michael Victor).
The Iroquoian First Nations tribes are an
example of a matrilineal tribe, along with
Mayan tribes, and also the society of
Meghalaya, India. (Laird and Victor, ).
By comparison, bonobos, the second-
closest species-relatives of man,
do not unite behind the chief male of the
land. The bonobos show deference to an
alpha or top-ranking female that, with the
support of her coalition of other females,
can prove as strong as the strongest
male in the land. Thus, if leadership
amounts to getting the greatest number
of followers, then among the bonobos, a
female almost always exerts the
strongest and most effective leadership.
However, not all scientists agree on the
allegedly "peaceful" nature of the bonobo
or its reputation as a "hippie chimp".[1]
[edit]Historical views on
leadership
This section needs
additional citations for
verification.
Please help improve this
article by adding reliable
references. Unsourced material
may
be challenged and removed.
(September 2009)
Leader-Member Exchange
Theory (LMX)
[edit]References
Notes
Books
[edit]External links
Wikimedia Commons has
media related to: Leadership
• discussion
• history
• Try Beta
search
Go Search
interaction
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact Wikipedia
Donate to Wikipedia
Help
toolbox
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Printable version
Permanent link
Cite this page
languages
Dansk
Deutsch
Español
Français
Hrvatski
Ido
Bahasa Indonesia
Italiano
עברית
Limburgs
Magyar
Nederlands
日本語
Polski
Português
Slovenčina
Svenska
Türkçe
Українська
粵語
中文
This page was last modified on 17
December 2009 at 00:57.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers