The purpose of this report is to explore the concept of leadership and present the characteristics of good leadership as outlined within the contemporary literature. A variety of leadership theories will be discussed in order to understand and draw a conclusion with regards to feasibility and application of those theories in organisations nowadays.
In order to outline the characteristics of good leadership it is vital to understand the concept itself. According to Rees and French (2016) leadership is difficult to clearly define as it depends on individual perception. What leadership means to one person may be understood differently by somebody else. Bertocci D. (2009) adds that leadership definition changes with time depending on current events and is often derived from the image of political leaders. Stogdill R. & Bass B (1990) define leadership as a process of influencing people in order to achieve a mutual goal. Similarly, Gibson, Ivancevich, Donnelly & Konopaske (2012) state that leadership is ‘an attempt to use non-coercive influence to motivate individuals to accomplish some goal’. What is more, Kotter (1999) approaches leadership as creating a vision and empowering people to achieve this vision by aligning strategies. All of the above was synthesised by Dean Amory in 2014 where he states that leadership equals influence therefore factual leaders are the ones who have the most influence on others. Even though the perception of leadership changes over time, it is understood and agreed that leadership involves influencing others by motivating them to achieve set goals or visions.
Different leadership theories can assist in establishing features of a good leader. Equally to definitions of leadership, these theories evolve over time as there are many external and internal factors influencing those changes.
Derived from Aristotelian philosophy, historian Thomas Carlyle drew a ‘Great Man’ theory based on the fact that great leaders do not acquire or learn their leadership skills, instead they are born with them (Forsyth D., 2009). According to Marquis and Huston (2009) this theory was a base to other theories until 1940s, it also confirms that equally as some individuals are born to lead others, some are simply born to be led. In order to establish and understand traits of great leaders the study of the most followed leaders, both in historical and current context, needs to be carried out. Carlyle in his work ‘On heroes, hero worship and the heroic in history’ (1888) links great men such as Mahomet, Shakespeare or Napoleon to concept of hero. What is more, he produces that history of the world is nothing else than ‘biography of great men’. Stogdill R. & Bass B (1990) add John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King to the great leaders list. According to Daft R. (2007) great leaders has always been thought of as men and were in possession of ‘natural abilities of power and influence’. A great man was often found in organisations, military, governments or social movements and visualised as a person who had the ability to influence others to follow him/her. It is recommended that great men have high level of intuition, judgment skills, charisma and personality which cannot be learnt from books or training (Tulsian C., 2009).
According to Tulsian the greatest criticisms of the Great Man Theory include that it has not been scientifically proven and is nothing more than a speculation. Another criticism is that the theory should not be gender defined therefore, as explained by Karen O’Connor in 2010, a Great Woman Theory was created as a counter -response to the issue. It is explained further that women expose higher level of ‘emotional intelligence’ than men which is understood as ability to use and control emotions in an effective manner, which could, in turn, contribute to higher suitability of women as successful leaders. The above argument may therefore contribute to the discussion of the relevance of the Great man Theory in modern organisations as it depends on a number of factors. A theory created nearly 150 years ago would most definitely require adjustments as it the society changes with time. The main criticism is that the theory is outdated and lacks sufficient examination. It is agreed that certain individuals are naturally better suited than others, however, it cannot be stated with certainty that they were born with set of skills therefore it is possible that the influence of their life experiences, personal development or training would have shaped their personality and therefore contributed to the image of great leader. In the times of the theory evolving it was more of a relevance to political or ideological leaders rather than managers in organisations.
Another early leadership theory, the trait theory, focuses more on certain physical, personal and appearance qualities of leaders rather than on their greatness itself. Different researches were carried out to identify those characteristics. Martin & Cashel (2006) produce a set of traits that were seen as attributes of a good leader. Amongst them are assertiveness, keeping right posture, confidence and ability to speak distinctly. Richard Daft (2007) adds that in 1940s and 1950s series of psychological tests were used to explore the concept further and provide specific list of characteristics of effective leader. The results showed that age, levels of energy, flow of speech, ability to carry on despite difficulties or popularity play a major part. What is more, Daft continues to explain further that in 1948 Stogdill carried out an additional study on the trait approach. He discovered that the importance of a particular characteristic is dependent on a situation the leader is found in, therefore the perception of certain trait changes with context, meaning the success of a leader is not guaranteed by simple possession of that trait. Stogdill added that intelligence, confidence, integrity and no fear of responsibility also define good leader. In his later study, in 1970 he identified aggressiveness, being resistant to stress and being independent as additions to his earlier discoveries.
David Bertocci (2009) puts forward the biggest criticism of the trait theory. He asked a question as to the reasons why some of the great leaders do not come from generations of great men, would it then mean the theory is not valid as leaders do not actually possess the inborn attributes? The clarification may come from Gibson, Ivancevich and Donnelly (2012) who suggest that leadership traits work in combination and are dependent very much on the situation and environment an individual is found in. They carry on by stating that new traits are added every year which creates an additional confusion as to the true traits of a leader.
The uncertainty whether leaders are born with the above attributes or again, those can be learnt or acquired during their life influence their relevance in today’s organisations. As stated above, new traits are researched with time therefore it may be deemed difficult to substantiate and standardise a set list of attributes. Some of those traits, for example confidence, honesty or integrity will always be respected and valued very high in leadership roles but their importance is dependent on a number of factors within organisations. The culture within an organisation, diversity, type of workforce or even type of organisation itself would all have an impact. For instance, the level of honesty and integrity in financial background would bear a different significance as opposed to manufacturing environment. What is more, an interesting insight into the variations in leadership traits between men and women is given by Badura et all (2018). With an increase of women in leadership roles in modern organisations we can observe a diminishing gap between female and male traits, where communal (such as kindness) and agentic (such as assertive or dominant) traits merge.
Various literature sources outline transactional and transformational approaches to leadership. Both of those leadership styles differ from each other significantly. According to Bertocci (2009) a leader operating transactional style identifies what needs to be taken into consideration, such as needs of the individuals, their perception and self-esteem requirements in order to enable them to work towards achieving set goal. The leader then establishes the reward for achieving a goal and demonstrates how to do it. The individual is then left on its own and there is no intervention unless there are issues in achieving the goal. This concept is often called ‘management by exception’. George J. & Jones G. (2014) agree with the above stating that this specific type of leadership focuses on rewarding in exchange for high performance levels with the use of performance management systems. The goals can be adjusted as flexibility is very important and a good leader is aware of the need for this. Kwasi D. (2015) notes that transactional approach is mostly focused on the actual task rather than people involved within the process. Michael Armstrong and Stephen Taylor (2017) make it clear that transactional leaders expose skills associated mostly with controlling processes, planning, organising and achieving results. The factors taking part in transactional approach were distinguished as ‘contingent reward and management by exception’ (Bass, 2009). Management by exception was later divided into active and passive. Within the active factor an action would be taken when performance standards are not met whereas the passive one focuses on taking an action not sooner than problems itself arise. Bass continues to add that transactional leader’s definition is very similar to definition of a manager. Rosenbach (2018) agrees that if used correctly, transactional approach can be an effective tool in achieving high performance and therefore constitute a part of managerial leadership.
Tim Richardson (2015) advises that transactional approach to leadership requires adjustments if the organisations are no longer able to offer enough flexibility; it is also mentioned that ‘command and control, egocentric and autocratic’ style is referred to as not durable, forceful and not providing enough motivation. Richardson adds that it can often be damaging to reputation of organisations. The fact was also noted by Bass (2009) who states that if within organisations were only transactional leaders then their approach, and therefore success of that organisation would be impacted as corrective action needs to be taken much earlier than when the issue becomes noticeable.
It is true however that this style of leadership is still very much prevalent in organisations nowadays. It is also agreed that transactional style of leadership is found mostly in managerial positions where performance of an employee is rewarded with pay rises, bonuses or promotions. Those are still quite popular ways of recognition and that a lot of individuals still feel satisfied with. The constantly changing factors, both external and internal as well as individual needs and perceptions may force the leadership style to transform and adapt accordingly in order for organisations to go forwards and move away from the traditional approaches.
This thought leads to transformational approach to leadership. As explained by Bertocci in 2009 transformational leadership style encourages individuals not only to reach performance standards but to exceed the expectations of a leader. Three fundamental traits enabling a leader to achieve that are listed as charisma being an ability to embed a ‘sense of value, respect and pride’ and to share the common vision, paying attention to an individuals’ needs and allowing them to grow both on personal and professional levels as well as encouraging individuals to be innovative and come up with fresh ideas. The main aim of transformational leadership is to provide followers with internal rather than materialistic rewards so that they interested in working towards a long term, more substantial goal. Rosenbach (2018) continues to agree with Bertocci by stating that transformational leaders aim to achieve future goals and develop long reaching plans. They motivate individuals by ensuring their development is not overlooked and ensure their interest lies within the success of the organisation they are involved in. Those leaders are not afraid to give new projects and challenges out, but they are very wary of personal limitations of individuals they work with therefore try to ensure the risk is minimal by ensuring enough support is given during the process. Leaders must be confident in speaking to people, communicative and open to them in order to be seen as transformational leaders (Phaneuf et all, 2016). Similarly to transactional model of leadership, transformational can be found in workplace managers however as Rosenbach emphasises, those are very strong managers with a full range of managerial skills.
According to David Day (2014), as spectacular as transformational leadership looks it has its limitations and criticists. It believed that this particular type of leadership only slightly take interest in the role of individuals within the process. It was also added that too much attention is paid to the way the leader affects its followers rather than on the goals and organisational performance. Yukl (2006) specifies further by stating that there is not enough clarification given as to the background information on what influences transformational leadership processes as well as the ways the leaders manage to create such well performing groups. It is also suggested that further research should be carried out to understand how exactly leaders influence and build the trust and mutual working relationship between themselves and their followers. What is more, as Day carries on, the transformational theory has been also criticised for ‘one size fits all’ approach of a leader whereas it may very much depend on an organisation, its process, culture or different situations they are found in.
There are many comparisons found between transactional and transformational approaches. According to Avolio B. & Bass B. (2001) transformational theory expand on foundations of transactional and therefore is more effective in achieving common goals as well as personal satisfaction of the followers. A very interesting image of association between leadership styles and gender emerges from findings of William Rosenbach (2018) who established that women are more likely to take transformational approach to leadership than men who, in turn, expose more of transactional approach. According to the author men are better suited for carrying out disciplinary and corrective processes. Women however, look beyond rewarding which is a main trend of transactional leadership, they are also much more effective in providing support and encouragement. Rosenbach comes to a bold conclusion that women are generally more effective in leadership positions whilst men can deter effectiveness and that women are therefore better suited to modern organisations.
In the light of the above, women are increasingly taking over leadership roles within organisations which means that significance of transformational approach will raise in popularity. There are many trends nowadays that suggest the need for changes in leadership mindsets, transformational approach has got a potential to put transactional aside. What is more, as the market becomes more and more globalised, employees have the increasing need to feel empowered and take bigger part in organisational growth, the transactional leadership can be an answer to this. Good management is not only about taking corrective action, employees want to feel supported, valued and motivated, with their personal need for development taken into consideration.
There are many internal as well as external factors contributing to the relevance of the above described theories within organisations today. There is some relevance with all of those, the origins and age of those theories are probably the most important as it can be argued that the older the theory is, the less relevant it would be today. With all of the older theories concentrated around ‘men’, the transformational approach to leadership may be the most up-to-date and relevant to modern organisations. Even the lack of flexibility of the ‘great man’ theory forced the evolution of the ‘great woman’ theory, it suggests that gender relevance is very important in today’s world. The changing audience of followers is also very meaningful, with increasing influence of millennials the leaders must constantly adapt and find new ways of ensuring their needs as satisfied. Theories which are 100 years old were designed to suit a different type of followers, the needs of middle-aged men a 100 years ago were much different to the needs of individuals today. The pressure is not so much on salaries or bonuses but on flexibility and work life balance. Constantly developing technology also requires finding new ways to motivate and engage employees. It is worth to conclude therefore that a leader would never only expose one type of leadership technique, depending on situation a mixture of different styles may be required, or even a creation of a new style is one possible option.
To summarise, there are many leadership theories found in contemporary literature, all of them are slightly different and outline different characteristics of a good leader. There is many arguments as to the relevance of those theories within contemporary organisations, it is concluded however that most of them do not take the gender and change factors into considerations, although many are still of some level of relevance today, it can be argued that they were the most relevant to the times they were created in and therefore require adjustments if they were to be used nowadays.