Behavioral and Situational Theories

Behavioral theory earned attention in the mid-20^th century after the publication of an article for the Harvard Business Review. This theory was created with the opinion that leadership can be learned. It is a consensus that certain behaviors or skills are more necessary than others for effective leadership. This is what separates leaders from non-leaders. During research on this theory, it was determined that there were three skills that pervaded all of the studies and which were shown to be indicators of good leadership. The three determinants of effective leadership are: technical skills, human skills and conceptual skills. Technical skills are the skills that are needed to get the job done. Human skills are abilities to relate to other people and develop good interpersonal relationships. Conceptual skills are skills concerning the ability to visualize and make fantasies become realities. After the class discussed these things, we were given a scenario in which we needed to pick who we would nominate to be a leader. Persons B, C and E were the most picked, if my memory is serving me well. I do not think it was a coincidence that they all happened to be experienced in all three different skill levels. I think that the class considered those with experience in all three skill levels as more qualified to be leaders. The nice thing about this theory is that it suggests that there is more than one type of behavior or set of skills that leads to effective leadership. It also emphasizes the behavioral assets of others. This theory demands that leaders change their styles in response to different situations. Leaders have to take a chameleon-like approach to leading. A leader has to be willing to adjust to differences in whatever environment he or she is working in. This is referred to as the “situational theory” and it consists of two dimensions: directive and supportive leadership. “Directing” is, as the name implies, high directive. However, the supportive aspect is low. This style is concerned with giving roles to members and initiating problem-solving and decision-making. “Coaching” is high supportive and high directive. This approach sounds like it could be exhausting. There is a lot of communication with the coaching style implemented. The “supporting” approach is kind of like taking the role of the cheerleader of the group. There is a lot of recognition of members and active listening. Lastly, there is the “delegating” approach. This is low directive and low supportive. This is taking a laissez faire approach and letting members run the show. A friend and I have been working with people with regards to their health. We make meal plans for them and guide them while they work out at the gym. Personally, I have found that the coaching style is the most effective. Listening to them talk about their goals and desires, while giving them direction in order to achieve those goals has shown substantial improvement in their performances. Without this style of leadership, it would be an arduous task to get them motivated, while still informing them.

Trait Theory

In last week’s class, we discussed the “trait approach.” A component of the trait approach is the “great man theory.” This approach focuses more on leaders than the other approaches to leadership. It is concerned with looking at traits and characteristics of people who are in leadership positions in order to gain a better understanding of what “makes” a leader. This theory generates the idea that there is a specific composition of leaders that a person can be born with, or that a person can work to create for themselves.  Initially, it was thought that only “great” people had these traits, hence the name of the theory. This theory was eventually challenged by speculation of researchers in the mid-20^th century. They purported that someone can be a leader, and have the appropriate traits for one situation, but not be a good leader with the appropriate traits in another situation. That makes sense to me. How could someone be a great leader and have traits that are compatible with every situation? However, it’s been recently shown that personality traits are “…strongly associated with individuals’ perceptions of leadership.” (pg. 16) Needless to say, the trait approach is something which is still being studied to this day. Much research has been done on this topic, keeping it alive in the study of leadership. More than a hundred traits have been synthesized and attributed to great leaders. After it was ascertained that a leader can be good in one situation and terrible in another, the idea that traits had to be relevant to certain situations arose. Stogdill, a researcher who published work in the 1970’s, did a study that linked certain personality traits to effective leadership. The major leadership traits are: intelligence, self-confidence, determination, integrity and sociability. I remember being the president of the art club and having to display sociability and self-confidence. It took a lot of confidence to speak to them and be confident about what I was saying, and of course I needed to be a social person to be in this position. I needed to be willing to speak with people and hear their points of view. I also needed to collaborate with all the other group members and make compromises. It was definitely a group effort. We were all the presidents, in different ways. Personality factors correlated to leadership are: neuroticism, extraversion, openness, agreeableness and conscientiousness. Neuroticism, of course, has a negative impact on leadership abilities. It can really hinder one’s ability to reach his or her full potential in a leadership role. I’d say that the one factor I need to work on the most is conscientiousness. I can be pretty indecisive at times. My opinion completely contradicts what I learned about myself in class, however. That was one of my highest scoring traits in the “Leadership Motive Profile.” Though the trait approach has generated way too many different traits, it is a very helpful approach. This approach really focuses on the leader, which makes it pretty unique.

Leadership Models

The discussion in last week’s class dealt with eras of leadership and the implications of the leaders and followers in each form. The first model of leadership discussed was “Tribal” leadership. This type of leadership revolves around family and is run by people’s fear of not surviving. Tribal members are alienated from goals other than surviving. The tribal leader uses a directive and task oriented approach. This type of approach is mentioned in the reading. They take a high directive-low supportive approach to get work done. It is also required that they have some technical skill because they needed to cooperate with the other members to achieve a goal. The leader is in a leader role because he/she has a skill that is very important for the group to function. An example of tribal leadership that exists today can be found in the United States and Canada. The Sioux people maintain tribal governments in North America and Canada. The leaders make decisions that include: hunting, camp movements, war and peace with their neighbors, and many other community actions. The next model discussed was “Pre-Classical” leadership. In this model, leaders are considered divine amongst their subordinates. They were deeply concerned with spirituality and harbored all of the power. These leaders were usually kings and queens. They had the power to terminate anyone who opposed them and demonstrated strong complicity with churches. The next model is “Classical” leadership. This model took precedence in the early twentieth century. At this time, workers didn’t need very much technical skill. They were given one task, and had to perform the same task over and over again. This consequently made them replaceable, and because they were only doing one thing, they earned very low wages. The leaders, however, didn’t need any technical skill at all. They needed conceptual skill. They needed to work with ideas and concepts rather when with the machinery. Leaders such as Rockefeller and Ford are examples of classical leaders. Workers were overworked and were convinced that their work would build their characters. Following this model is the “Progressive” model of leadership. A coaching approach is taken in this style of leadership. It focuses on empowering employees and unlocking their potential for the good of the organization. Leaders in this model need human skills. Lastly, there is “Post-progressive” leadership. This model addresses the world in which we live today. Leaders of this model must have social perceptiveness and be motivational. They are more concerned with collaborating with team members, rather than be the boss. I experienced this model myself when I worked with a Real Estate company. Once my boss showed me how to do my role, he asked for my opinions about what would make certain things better about the company. He encouraged me and made the work environment very comfortable. I suggested a new way of organizing files and we implemented the idea. It made work more enjoyable and this model, in my opinion, is superior to the ones used prior to this one.