Leadership Style and Performance Essay

An overview of the topic of leading airs summarizes that the existing studies on how trans achievement is affected by leading style is separated into important phases. premature studies on drawing cardship (ofttimes categorized as mark studies on lead) operose on identifying the personality traits which characterized successful drawing cards (Argyris, 1955 Mah championy et al. , 1960). According to them successful loss attractions argon naturally born and those they save certain native characteristics which bring out them from non-leaders (see Stodgill, 1948).However, in that complaisance was significant difficulty in validating these characteristics led to widespread criticism of this trait approach, signaling the emergence of style and behavioral approaches to lead (Stodgill, 1948). Style and behavioral theorists shifted the emphasis away from the characteristics of the leader to the behavior and style the leader adopted. The primry conclusion of these studies is that adoption of democratic or participative styles by leaders argon to a greater extent successful (see, for example, Bowsers and Seashore, 1966).In this sense, these early studies argon concentrate on identifying the whizz best way of leading. Similarly to trait theories, the major weakness of style and behavioral theories is the ignorance of how important spot mailal factors dissemble in determining the effectiveness of individual leaders (Mullins, 1999). It is this limitation that gives inception to the situational and contingency theories of leaders (for example, Fiedler, 1967 Ho enjoyment, 1971 Vroom and Yetton, 1974) which shift the emphasis away from the matchless best way to lead to context-sensitive leading.Although each study emphasizes the grandness of unlike factors, the general tenet of the situational and contingency perspectives is that leading effectiveness is dependent on the leaders diagnosis and understanding of situational factors, followed by the adop tion of the withdraw style to deal with each circumstance. However, recent studies on leadership contract contrasted transactional leadership with trans make upational. Transactional leaders ar said to be instrumental and frequently focus on exchange relationship with their subordinates.In contrast, transformational leaders be argued to be wordy and enthusiastic, with an inherent ability to actuate subordinates. Although the brief drumhead above indicates that enquiry into leadership has gone through periods of skepticism, recent pursuit has focused on the importance of the leadership role to the success of boldnesss. Fiedler (1996), one of the most respected researchers on leadership, has provided a recent treatise on the importance of leadership by arguing that the effectiveness of a leader is a major determinant of the success or failure of a group, organization or even an entire country.It has been argued that one way in which organizations contri simplye sought to co pe with the increasing volatility and turbulence of the external surroundings is by training and developing leaders and equipping them with the skills to cope. These claims are base on the assumption of a send middleman amongst leadership and organizational capital punishment. This assumption rents critical limited review. Widely celebrated cases of a direct leadershipperformance link may be found in numerous anecdotal accounts of improvements of company performance attributed to changes in leadership (see, for example, Nicholls, 1988 Quick, 1992 Simms, 1997).However, falsifi equal studies into the links between leadership and performance hold up been lacking. One celebrated exception is the detailed study of the impact of leadership on performance in the somewhat surprising context of Icelandic fishing ships. Thorlindsson (1987) suggests that variations in the performance of different fishing ships, under identical conditions, can be accounted for by the leadership ski lls of captains. Over a three-year period, Thorlindsson revealed that the leadership qualities of the ship captains accounted for 35 to 49 per cent of variation in the catch of different crews. opposite studies which examine the links between leadership and performance coincide with the re-emergence of the one best way to lead debate. Of particular relevance is the resurgence of enliven into charismatic leadership, which is frequently referred to as transformational leadership ( rich and Avolio, 1993). A number of researchers presuppose that transformational leadership is linked to organizational performance. Conceptually, it is argued that the grotesque and inspirational skills of transformational leaders motivate allys to deliver superior performance.In summary, much of the above present presented as supporting the claim of a leadershipperformance link is anecdotal and frequently over-concentrates on the transformational role of leaders in corporal successes. It would appear that few studies have responded to the observation of Porter and Mckibbin (1988) that much of the research reported as supporting this claim is either inconclusive or empirically suspect. The limited or inconclusive character of research findings in this area suggests the need to investigate further the nature of the relationship between leadership and performance.Several different categories of leadership pictures have been suggested by confused researchers. For example, Bass (1985) stated that there are quadruple dimensions of transformational leadership, three dimensions of transactional leadership, and a non-leadership dimension of laissez-faire leadership (Bass, 1985). Ain truth (2004) suggested categorizing leadership into four leadership doubles, period Goleman (1995) prefers six leadership icons. Despite Basss (1985) model cosmos acclaimed as qualification a major contribution to leadership, his theory has been criticized for various reasons (Yukl, 1999).One critic ism is that his model overemphasizes the importance of one or devil leadership paradigms (e. g. transactional and tedious), omitting the classical and innate paradigms Bass asserts that wordy (transformational) leaders are nearly always more than effective than transactional leaders, but others (e. g. Judge and Piccolo, 2004 Wallace, 1997) strife this. While this in itself does non invalidate the concept of visionary leadership, Bass attributes more to visionary (transformational) leadership than perhaps he should.As Avery (2004) suggested, some(prenominal) transactional and visionary leadership are valid forms of leadership, but visionary leadership may be applicable more broadly, including in situations where there are insufficient re etymons for the manager to rely on supplying external takingss (Judge and Piccolo, 2004), or where the situation is complex and ambiguous, and relies strongly on follower noesis and intrustment. Avery suggests that there are other situatio ns in which transactional leadership is the appropriate form of leadership, much(prenominal)(prenominal) as when chase are unwilling or unable to commit to the leaders vision.In contrast with Basss (1985) model, Averys (2004) paradigms provide a broad basis allowing for different forms of leadership that have evolved at different times and in different places. The paradigms are utile for showing that there is no single best way of thinking about leadership, rather that different kinds of leadership reflect social and historic roots. Averys paradigms allow leadership to depend on the context, respond to organizational needs and preferences, and involve many interdependent factors that can be manipulated (Bryman, 1992 Shamir and Howell, 1999 Yukl, 1999).Avery (2004) proposes 13 indices to differentiate between her four paradigms classical, transactional, visionary, and organic. The gild indices included in this review are decision making, range of staffs occasion, power surmoun t between leader and the staff, key player of the organization, source of staffs trueness, staffs responsibility, situation of management and leadership in the organization, situation of diversity in the organization and situation of control in the organization. These nine-spot criteria are considered more relevant for differentiating the four leadership paradigms than the other four criteria.Each paradigm is discussed in turn, including the distinguishing characteristics using the above nine criteria. innocent leadership is probably the oldest paradigm with its origins in antiquity, and is still used in contemporary organizations (Avery, 2004). This paradigm reflected the prevailing view in the business literary productions until the 1970s when the human relations movement led to more of a focus on followers and their environment. According to Avery (2004), classical leadership refers to bureau by a pre-eminent person or an elite group of sight.This leadership can either be c oercive or benevolent or a mixture of both. This happens because the elite individual or group commands or maneuvers other members to act towards a goal, which may or may non be explicitly stated. The other members of the society or organization typically adhere to the directives of the elite leader, do non openly question their directives, and act orders largely out of solicitude of the consequences of not doing so, or out of respect for the leader, or both (Avery, 2004). Classical leadership has some limitations.The first occurs where the leader cannot command and control every action, particularly as situations sprain more complex and beyond the capacity of one person or when spare commitment from followers is needed to get a job done, such as in reacting to changing circumstances or when ideas about leadership change and followers no longer accept domination, or follower commitment starts to wane for other reasons. Another limitation is that this paradigm frequently reli es on the idea of a great person, implying that only a select few are good enough to exercise initiative, and this judgment can encourage followers to deskill themselves nd idealize the leaders.Followers then(prenominal) look for and hold little power, leave the leader accountable for organizational outcomes, and make relatively little contribution to the organization (Avery, 2004). According to the nine distinguishing indicators, under the classical leadership paradigm leaders normally use an autocratic style for making decisions, involving followers in the decision making process never or very little they do not dower followers. Followers have almost no power in the organization and as classical leaders tend to be passing directive, followers can be unskilled.The source of followers commitment comes from their fear of or respect for the leaders the technical agreement becomes more ordinance the operations in the organization become more routine and sure and the organizatio n is super controlled by the leaders (Avery, 2004). A transaction or exchange process is the basis of the commonly absorbed transactional leadership paradigm (Evans and Dermer, 1974 House and Mitchell, 1974). The transactional leader recognizes subordinates needs and desires, and then clarifies how those needs and desires will be met in exchange for subordinates work.By clarifying what is required of subordinates and the consequences of their behaviors, transactional leaders are able to build confidence in subordinates to exert the necessary trend to achieve expected levels of performance. According to Judge and Piccolo (2004), three dimensions of transactional leadership are contingent reward, management by exception-active, and management by exception-passive. Contingent reward is the degree to which the leader sets up constructive transactions or exchanges with followers.The leader clarifies expectations and establishes the rewards for meeting these expectations. In general, m anagement by exception is the degree to which the leader takes corrective action on the basis of results of leader-follower transactions (Judge and Piccolo, 2004). As observe by Howell and Avolio (1993), the difference between management by exception-active and management by exception-passive lies in the timing of the leaders intervention. Active leaders manage follower behavior, anticipate problems, and take corrective actions before the behavior creates sombre difficulties.Passive leaders wait until the behavior has created problems before taking action (Howell and Avolio, 1993 Judge and Piccolo, 2004). According to Avery (2004, p. 34), under the transactional leadership paradigm, leaders adopt a consultative style for making decisions. They engage in different degrees of extension with individual followers, but the leaders remain the final decision-makers. Leaders do not very often empower followers, and followers have very low power in the organization apart from being able to withdraw from or contribute more of their labor.Compared with classical leadership, under transactional leadership the source of followers commitment comes from the rewards, transcriptions, and expectations negotiated with the leader rather than from their fear of, or respect for, the classical leader. The technical system becomes more regulating, the operations in the organization become more routine and predictable, and the organization is mostly mellowly controlled by the leaders. Avery (2004) argues that under transactional leadership, the followers knowledge base can be somewhat higher than under classical leadership.Compared with classical leaders, transactional leaders require staff somewhat more skilled on specific tasks. In the last three decades, visionary (transformational, charismatic) leadership has received increasing assistance (Bass, 1985, 1998 Burns, 1978 Conger and Kanungo, 1987 House, 1977). It added a current dimension to organizational studies, namely the visionary aspect of leadership and the emotional involvement of employees within an organization. The basic notion is that a visionary leader can create an impression that he or she has high competence and a vision to achieve success.Subordinates are expected to respond with enthusiasm and commitment to the leadership objectives, and may be recruited because they share the vision. Bass (1985, 1998) developed a theory of visionary or transformational leadership whereby the leader inspires and activates subordinates to perform beyond normal expectations. According to Avery (2004), visionary leadership has limitations, even with the current literatures overwhelmingly imperative view of it. Nadler and Tuschman (1990) pointed out that the unrealistic expectations followers often place on visionary leaders can create disappointment if things do not work out.Followers can become dependent on visionary leaders, believing that the leader has everything under control. Also, innovation can be conquer if people become reluctant to disagree with a visionary leader. Avery (2004, p. 39) distinguishes the visionary leadership paradigm from the other three paradigms as follows. First, leaders employ a collaborative style for making decisions. They share problems with their followers and seek consensus before the leaders make the final decision. Visionary leaders empower their followers, giving followers a much higher level of power in the organization than classical and transactional leadership.This is essential because the leader needs the followers input and commitment to realize his or her goals. Followers of visionary leadership need sufficient power to work autonomously towards a shared out vision. The source of followers commitment comes from the influence of the leaders charisma and/or the shared vision, the technical system becomes still more complex, operations become more uncertain and unpredictable, and the organization is jointly controlled by the leaders and their followers.Regarding the followers knowledge base, visionary leadership requires skilled and knowledgeable workers who are attracted to, and share the leaders vision, and can contribute to realizing the vision. The fourth paradigm, organic leadership, is relatively new to organizational studies. Recently introduced by Drath (2001) and expanded by Avery (2004), organic leadership is likely to blur the formal distinction between leaders and followers.This paradigm relies on reciprocal actions, where team members work together in whatsoever roles of authority and power they may have, not based on agency power (Hirschhorn, 1997 Raelin, 2003 Rothschild and Whitt, 1986). Employees become interacting partners in determining what makes sense, how to adapt to change, and what is a utilitarian direction. Rather than relying on one leader, organic organizations are likely to have many leaders. Multiple leaders are valuable because as people cope with heterogeneous and dynamic environmen ts, the knowledge and issues become too complex for only a few leaders to understand (Avery, 2004).Organic leadership allows for people with different degrees of expertise on current issues to emerge and be accepted by the group as leaders. In addition, under organic leadership, there may be no formal leaders and the interaction of all organizational members can act as a form of leadership, held together by a shared vision, values, and a supporting culture. under this paradigm where an organization has no formal leadership structure, an integrator role may emerge to actively link together the many separate of the organization (Avery, 2004).The emphasis is on emerging leadership rather than on people being appointed to leadership positions. However, Kanter (1989) argued that the downside of organic leadership that advocates autonomy, freedom, fragility and authorization may result in loss of control and greatly increased uncertainty. It is important to recognize that organic leade rship is about generating a form of self-control and self-organization, where people have a clear sense of purpose and autonomy within a particular context (Meindl, 1998).This regard organic leadership paradigm requires differentiating from classical, transactional, and visionary leadership concepts by not relying on formal leaders. Furthermore, the enterprise has to trust in the capacity of its members to adjudicate problems and make decisions in the interests of the organization. This idea clearly relies upon self-leading organizational members (Avery, 2004). According to Averys (2004, p. 39) distinguishing characteristics, under organic leadership an organization adopts a mutual agreement style for making decisions.Decisions need not be unanimous but can be based on consensus. The members have a high degree of power as a result of this shared leadership. righteousness and responsibility are shared as well. The source of followers commitment is based on the values and visions s hared by all the members in the organization a strong, shared culture a technical system that is highly complex operations in the organic organization become more self-organizing and unpredictable formal control is provided by peer gouge and group dynamics, and a shared culture, vision, and values.Members are self-managing. Organic leadership seems particularly appropriate for professional and knowledge workers in dynamic, chaotic situations. This leadership paradigm relies on attracting and retaining highly trained and knowledgeable staff with self-controlling capabilities.