CHAPTER ONE

Introduction to Leadership
1.1. Leadership definition
In the words of Keith Davis, “Leadership is the ability to persuade others to seek defined objectives
enthusiastically. It is the human factor that binds a group together and motivates it toward goals. In the words
of Gupta, “Leadership may be defined as a process of influencing the action of individuals as members of a
group to achieve the desired goal in a given situation use of force by the leader. Robbins defines leadership as
the ability to influence a group toward the achievement of goals. Hodge andJohnson are of the opinion that,
“leadership is fundamentally the ability to form and mould the attitudes and behaviour of other individuals,
whether informal or formal situation and that management relates to the formal task of decision and
command.” Ivancevich, Szilagyi and Wallace, define leadership “as the relationship between two or more
people in which one attempts to influence the other toward theaccomplishment of some goal or goals. Thus,
leadership is a process of influencing other people to mobilise and direct their efforts towards certain goals
and to accomplish these goals through them.

Although you can often recognize a leader when you see one in action coming up with a precise definition of
leadership is difficult. Even researchers often disagree about which characteristics best describe leadership
but, in general two are regarded as being the most important. First, leadership involves exerting influence
over other members of a group or organization. Second, leadership involves helping a group or organization
achieve its goals. Combining these two key characteristics we can define leadership as the exercise of
influence by one member of a group or organization over other members to help the group or organization
achieve its goals. The leaders of a group or organization are the individuals who exert such influence.
Leadership effectiveness is the extent to which a leader actually does help a group or organization to achieve
its goals. An effective leader helps achieve goals: an ineffective leader does not. Leaders influence their
subordinates' or followers' levels of motivation, performance absenteeism and turnover and the quality of their
decision making. All leaders exert influence over members of a group or organization. Some leaders, however
have formal authority to do so while others do no! Formal leaders are those managers who are given the
authority to influence other members in the organization to achieve its goals. With this authority comes the
responsibility to make the best use of all organization's resources, including its money and capital and the
abilities and skills of its employees. Note that not all managers are leaders some managers do not have
subordinates who report to them. For example, the accounting manager of a restaurant who is responsible for
keeping the books is a manager but not a formal leader this person could be an informal1cader however.
Informal leaders have no formal job authority to influence others but sometimes exert just as much influence
in an organization as formal leaders and sometimes even more. The ability of informal leaders to influence
others often stems from special skills or talents they possess-skills the organization's members realize will
help it achieve its goal.
1.2. Leadership Vs Management

What is the difference between a manager and a leader?

Leadership and management are two terms that are often confused.
 John Kotterof:-the Harvard Business School argues that “managers promote stability while
leaders press for change and only organizations that embrace both sides of the contradiction can
survive in turbulent times.”
 Professor RabindraKanungo at McGill University sees a growing consensus emerging “among
management scholars that the concept of ‘leadership’ must be distinguished from the concept of
‘supervision/management.’’ Leaders provide vision and strategy; managers implement that
vision and strategy, coordinate and staff the organization, and handle day-to-day problems. The
distinction between management and leadership is not either-or; rather, it’s a balance. While powerful
leaders are more than just excellent managers, an essential aspect of their credibility stems from their
management expertise. Keep in mind that the distinction between management and leadership is not a
dichotomy, but rather a blend or balance. Both are needed in today’s knowledge-based organizations

Distinguishing Leadership from Management

Management Leadership
Engages in day-to-day caretaker activities: Formulates long-term objectives for
Maintains and allocates resources reforming the system: Plans strategy and
tactics
Exhibits supervisory behaviour: Acts to Exhibits leading behaviour: Acts to
make others maintain standard job bring about change in others congruent
behaviour with long-term objectives
Administers subsystems within Innovates for the entire organization
organizations
Asks how and when to engage in standard Asks what and why to change standard
practice practice
Acts within established culture of the Creates vision and meaning for the
organization organization
Uses transactional influence: Induces Uses transformational influence:
compliance in manifest behaviour using Induces
rewards, sanctions, and formal authority change in values and expertise
Relies on control strategies to get things Uses empowering strategies to make
 done by subordinates followers internalize values
Status quo supporter and stabilizer Status quo challenger and change creator
Success based on predictability Success based on innovation and adaptation
Plans Energy
Defines vision and purpose statements Lives vision and purpose
Does things right Does the right things
Top-down strategy Leadership at all levels; everyone strategic
Measurement of activities Measurement of results
“Head stuff” (e.g., behaviour, compliance) “Heart stuff” (e.g., morale, commitment)

Sources of Leaders Power/Influence in Organizations.

The study of power in organizations requires that we first define the terms that are relevant to our discussion.
Poweras the ability of one person to cause another person to do something they otherwise might not do.
Formal individual poweris the power that originates from a person’s position in an organization.
Authorityis the formal power a person holds because of their position in the organizational hierarchy.
According to this definition, upper level supervisors would have authority over lower level supervisors in their
organizational structure. Like the concept of formal leadership, these definitions convey the idea that power in
an organizational setting derives from one’s position in the organization.

Power that is derived from one’s position in an organization is also accompanied by an obligation; namely, to
use that power in an ethical manner for the accomplishment of organizational goals. Leadership in
organizations requires that leaders accept the responsibilities of a position and the power that goes with the
position
; thus, they should be held accountable for the manner in which they use the power inherent in their position
for accomplishing organizational goals.

Thus, leadership in organizations involves the use of various types of power to influence performance and
achieve goals. These may include legitimate power, reward power, coercive power, expert power, referent
power, and information power. Both formal and informal leaders exercise influence with an organization by
some combination of these forms of power. A discussion of each follows hereunder:

Legitimate Power
Legitimate power is the power assigned to a given position within an organizational structure. The power
comes with the position and is assigned to the person who occupies a specific position within the organization.
Should the individual leave the position, the power remains with the position and does not follow the
individual. This power is legitimate because it is defined by the organizational structure, and the individual
occupying the position is vested with the power. The assumption of power is generally signified by an official
title; and the relative degree of power is reflected on the organizational chart by its situation relative to other
positions within the organization.

Organizations sanction various levels of power. These levels of power correspond to the hierarchical
executive levels within the organization itself. A position that is higher in the organization will have more
power vested in it than a lower position; and a manager occupying the higher level position will be able to
exercise more power than someone occupying a lower position.

Thus, it would appear that legitimate power is more suited to a manager than a leader, simply because leaders
attract followers and get them to do what is needed without position or hierarchical level. Managers on the
other hand may need position over others to accomplish tasks and achieve goals.

Reward Power
Reward power is also inherent within the organizational structure in that managers are given administrative
control over a range of rewards and resources. Employees can be influenced by the possibility of receiving
rewards in exchange for performing work. Organizational rewards are typically of monetary value; but they
may also be more subtle and intangible, such as managerial praise, status, attention, scheduling, and
promotion. Managers may offer a wide range of rewards to motivate work performance. A manager possesses
reward power over an employee to the extent that there is managerial control over the reward potential and to
the extent that the employee values and seeks the available rewards.
If a manager cannot deliver a desired reward, or if the available reward is not desired by or meaningful to the
employee, the reward power of the manager will be greatly diminished. Nevertheless, reward power is a tool
by which managers use organizational resources to influence and motivate genuine performance.

Thus, reward power seems to be more beneficial to managers than to leaders. Leaders, as we have discovered
earlier, often rely on more intrinsic rewards to energize followers, whereas managers seem to be more in line
with extrinsic rewards to motivate followers.

Coercive Power
Coercive power is based upon a leader’s ability potentially to punish or dismiss an employee and is, in part,
implied by a leader’s legitimate power. Punishment is defined by a range of options, from a mild warning to a
suspension to termination of employment, all of which are assumed to have negative consequences for the
person being punished.
Thus, in order for coercive power to be effective, a particular punishment must be perceived as having
negative consequences by the person being punished, just as rewards must be perceived as meaningful by
recipients. For example, for most people, losing one’s job is often perceived as having negative economic
consequences for the individual; but the use of employment contracts with termination clauses has had the
effects of weakening the both perception of punishment and the consequences for the individual when a
decision is made to terminate the contract regardless of the reason.

Termination of employment may also be perceived as having minimal economic consequences for an
individual when it is accompanied by a generous severance package. Thus, the punishment must be tied to the
perception of negative consequences for coercive power to be operative. Often the potential to apply coercive
power is sufficient in itself to influence the desired a change in an employee’s conduct or performance.
Coercive power may also have negative repercussions when it is associated with conflict.

Similar to the allocation of meaningful rewards, a range of punishments is needed because the punishment
applied should be appropriate or proportionate to the offending behaviour. Management, in having a range of
punishments from a mild warning to the more severe punishments, maintains a measure of flexibility to assess
what punishment is suitable to the behaviour in question. Coercive power is more useful to managers than
leaders who achieve goals and objectives without coercing followers with some threat of punishment. As
followers willingly do what they do out of respect for a leader, not in fear of the leader.
Several guidelines relative to the application of punishment are noteworthy:
• The punishment should be suitable to the offense.
• The punishment should follow as closely in time as possible to the offense committed.
• The punishment should have educational value wherein the person punished should understand why they are
being punished in order for the employee to change his or her behaviour.
• The manager doing the punishing should not enjoy doing it.

Finally, a point to remember in connection with coercive power is that punishment, or the threat of
punishment, does not promote desired employee performance; it only discourages undesirable actions on the
part of subordinates. Even though punishment does not promote desired behaviour, by serving to discourage
undesirable behaviour, it is a powerful tool for influencing behaviour.

Expert Power
Expert power is complex and is associated with the particular qualifications possessed by an individual,
including specialized skills, knowledge, abilities, or previous experience. Any of these qualifications may
enable the individual to exercise influence based on these qualifications, especially when the organization
needs and values the specialized skills, knowledge, abilities, or experience; the skills are scarce; or the skills
are highly specialized.
Because expert power is often derived from specialized knowledge or advanced education, it can be relatively
unrelated to age, seniority, or time on the job. This form of power allows someone who is relatively young or
new to the workforce to influence others within the organization. Expert power is often associated with
innovation and the power to influence change within an organization.

This form of power may also change over a period of time. First, the value placed upon a specific type of
expertise within an organization may change according to business decisions affecting what is needed and
valued by an organization in order to achieve its goals. Second, specialized knowledge and skills may become
obsolete if the person who possesses them does not keep up-to-date with newer advances. Third, specialized
knowledge and skills may be replaced by new forms of technical expertise.
Often, a leader (or managers with leadership skills) is viewed as having the skills most admired by followers.
Thus, expert power is most often associated with leaders and managers who possess highly relevant and
specialized qualifications.
Referent Power
Referent power is the power of one individual to influence another by force of character or personal charisma.
An individual may be admired because of a specific personal trait, and this admiration creates the opportunity
for interpersonal influence within a group or organization. Advertisers have long recognized referent power in
making use of sports figures and other charismatic persons for making product endorsements. An employee
who is particularly handsome or beautiful, talented, or just plain likable may be described by fellow
employees as inspiring and motivating; thus, endowing the individual with a potential to influence others as a
result of these personal qualities. An interesting feature of referent power is that it can be gained by
association. An individual’s power may derive, not from their personality, but from their association, relative
position or reporting relationship with another person who is identified as possessing power within the
organization.

Referent power is most often associated with leaders who possess the charismatic characteristics that
followers admire. It is important to note that some managers also have referent power and can use this to
exhort followers to accomplish tasks and achieve goals.
Information Power
Information power is power that comes from access to and control over information within the organization.
Information may be privileged information; it may be classified information; or it may simply be information
to which subordinates do not have access. The more information a person has within the organization, the
more power that person has. Thus, information is viewed as a valuable resource.
This is where a key difference between leaders and managers comes into play: Leaders, in most cases, want
their subordinates to know more information, because it is easier to solicit the assistance of informed
followers in achieving goals and objectives. Managers, on the other hand, may be reluctant to share
information if they perceive it as power-sharing and believe that their power to control subordinates and direct
their behaviour may be lost if their subordinates know as much as they do. Thus, managers believe that
information sharing means losing a measure of control over subordinates.

All in all, both formal and informal leaders exercise influence with an organization by some combination of
these forms of power. Formal leaders typically possess legitimate power by virtue of their position within the
organization. Their degree of control over organizational resources enables them to use reward power to
influence performance. They may also possess coercive power to the extent they can discipline employees and
affect decisions to hire or terminate employees. Formal leaders in complex organizations typically possess
varying degrees of expert power, which enables them to influence decisions across functional areas of an
organization. Depending on their position within an organization, formal leaders may also use varying degrees
of referent power to influence decisions or performance. Informal leaders, by virtue of their position within an
organization, are less likely to possess legitimate power or coercive power. Instead, they are more likely to
rely upon a combination of expert power, reward power and referent power to influence others. Informal
leaders often use expert power to influence change or innovation because their expertise enables them to solve
problems in new or creative ways and to develop new products or services. Informal leaders may not control
organizational resources typically associated with tangible or monetary rewards, but they may use intangible
forms of reward power such as attention to motivate and influence others. Informal leaders may also use
referent power to influence others by means of charismatic qualities or reflected authority that is based upon
their association with more powerful individuals.

Thus, leadership, influence, and power within an organization can be viewed in terms of formal and informal
leaders who use legitimate power, reward power, coercive power, expert power and referent power in
different combinations.
Some Leadership Realities
 People are not an organization’s greatest asset. Leaders are. If you invest in your leaders, you’ll
take care of every other asset—including your people.
 Leaders define their organization. What they think and how they think is crucial to the
organization’s success; what goes on inside their minds has greater impact on the organization than
any other single factor.
 Organizations don’t achieve greatness without planning for it, without consciously applying the
principles that lead to greatness. Applying those principles is a leadership function.
  To guide their thinking about the organization and its growth and transformation, leaders don’t
need a program,but they do need a framework. Individual giftedness and intuition are seldom
enough; in fact, they can be a handicap, because giftedness and intuition can keep leaders from
uncovering their blind spots.
 Organization development and leader development need to be addressed together. The two are
inseparably intertwined. You cannot change an organization without developing its leaders (at all
levels of the organization).
 Leaders need to understand how the three dimensions of leadership apply to their particular
role. Ignorance or misunderstanding of these three dimensions is among the main reasons for a
leader’s frustration or ultimate derailment. Organizations are best led when the right kind of
leadership is intentionally and systematically applied to the right context and at the right level. Errors
in this area cause much of the confusion in leadership.
1.3. What makes effective leader?
Effective leaders have many common qualities. Good group leaders make an effort to learn and practice skills
so they can: listen to others openly, offer and accept constructive suggestions, give clear directions, set and
deadlines give formal and informal presentations, help member’s identity and solve problems.

Effective leaders are characterised by the followings:

a. They are honest: This gives them credibility, resulting in the trust and confidence of their people,
credible leader foster greater pride in the organization, a stronger sprit of coordination, and team work,
and more feelings of ownership and personal responsibility.
b. Effective leaders want do what they will do they keep their promises and follow through on their
commitment.
c. Consistent: The make sure their actions are consistent with the wishes of the people the lead. They
have clear idea of what others value and what they can do.
d. They believe in the inherent self worth of others.
e. They admit to their mistakes. They realize that attempting to hide a mistake is damaging and erodes
credibility.
f. They create trusting and open climate
g. The help others successful and feel empowered.
h. They don’t push too much. They encourage members to do more, but know when it is too much
i. They avoid phrases that cause resentment, reluctance and resistance. For instance, instead of saying
you have to do something, effective leaders request or recommend that member that member’s do
something.
 CHAPTER TWO
Leadership Theories and Styles
2.1. Leadership Theories
2.1.1. The Great Man theory of Leadership
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 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. The definitely
posses high level of ambition coupled with clear vision 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 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 /All knowing/ prophets to succeed, but they definitely should have the right
stuff/gear/ 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

 Leaders are born and not made and possess certain traits which were inherited.
 Great leaders can arise when there is a great need
Much of the work on this theory was done the 19 th century and is often linked the work of the historian
Thomas Carlyle who commented on the great men or heroes of the history by 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 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. They theory implies 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 live 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.
2.1.2. The Trait Theory of Leadership
Early studies of leadership sought to identify enduring personal traits that distinguish leaders from followers
and effective from ineffective leaders. Traits are a person's particular tendencies to feel, think, and act in
certain ways. The search for leadership traits began in the 1930s, and after nearly 300 studies, the list was
narrowed to several traits that showed the strongest relationship to effective leadership.
• Intelligence: helps a leader solve complex problems.
• Task relevant knowledge ensures that a leader knows what has to be done, how it should be done, and what
resources are required for a group and origination to achieve its goals.
• Dominance individuals need to exert influence and control over others helps a leader enhance followers'
efforts and abilities toward achieving group and organizational goals.
• Self confidence both helps a leader influence followers and motivates them to persevere in the face of
obstacles or difficulties.
•Energy/ activity levelwhen high help a leader deal with the many demands he or she faces on a day-to-day
basis.
• Tolerance for stress helps a leader deal with the uncertainty inherent in any leadership role.
• Integrity and honesty ensure that that a leader behaves ethically and is worthy of his of his/her followers'
trust and confidence.
• Emotional maturity ensure that a leader is not overly self-centred can control his or her feelings, and can
accept criticism.
There is an important point to understand when viewing leadership using the trait approach. For some traits it
is not clear what comes first: being in leadership position or Possessing trait in question. In other words is it
possession of the appropriate trait that leads a person to become a leader? Or personality traits that change
over the long term (several years) does being put in a leadership position result in a person developing
leadership traits. The answer to this question is not clear or unambiguous. Individuals who possess the traits
associated with effective leadership may be more likely to become effective leaders than those who do nol.
But many individuals who possess the appropriate traits may never become leaders, and many leaders who
possess them are not effective. The difficulty of this question prompted researchers to look for other ways to
understand effective leadership and search for other factors that contribute to it.

2.1.3. Behavioral Leadership Theory

Rather than looking at the personal traits of leaders in later years researchers focused on what leaders actually
do-that is on the specific behaviours performed by effective leaders. Limited success in the study of traits led
researchers to look at the behaviours that specific leader’s exhibit. They wondered if there was something
unique in the way that effective leaders behave. They also wondered if it was possible to train people to be
leaders.
The three most well-known behavioural theories of leadership are the Ohio State studies that were
conducted starting in the late 1940s, the University of Michigan studies conducted at about the same time, and
Blake and Mouton’s Leadership Grid, which reflects the behavioural definitions of both the Ohio and
Michigan studies. All three approaches consider two main dimensions by which managers can be
characterized: attention to production and attention to people.
The Ohio State Studies
Researchers at Ohio State University in the 1940s and 1950s were at the forefront of the leader behaviour
approach. The Ohio State researchers realized one of the key ways in which leaders influence followers is
through their concrete behaviours. The behaviour approach seeks to identify leader behaviours that help
individuals, groups and organizations achieve their multiple goals.
The Ohio State researchers developed, a list of over 1,800 specific concrete behaviours they thought leaders
might engage in such as selling goals for followers, telling followers what to do, being friendly, and making
sure that followers are happy. The researchers then developed scales to measure these behaviours and
administered the scales to thousands of employees. Employees were asked to indicate the extent to which their
leaders performed the various leader behaviours. After analyzing their responses, the researchers found that
must leader behaviours involved either considerationorinitiatingstructure.
Consideration is defined as the extent to which a leader is likely to have job relationships characterized by
mutual trust, respect for employees’ ideas, and regard for their feelings. A leader who is high in consideration
shows concern for followers’ comfort, well-being, status, and satisfaction. For instance, leaders using this
style may create more flexible hours, or flex time, to make it easier for employees to manage family issues
during work hours.
Consideration: Behaviours indicating that a leader trusts, respects, and values good relationship, with his or
her followers is known as consideration.
Initiating structure refers to the extent to which a leader is likely to define and structure his or her role and
the roles of employees in order to attain goals; it includes behaviour that tries to organize work, work
relationships, and goals. For instance, leaders using this style may develop specific output goals or deadlines
for employees.
Initiating structure Behaviours that a leader engages in to make sure the work gets done and subordinates
perform their jobs acceptably are known as initiating structure.
Assigning individual task to followers, planning ahead, selling goals, deciding how the work should be
performed, and pushing followers to get their tasks accomplished are all initiating-structure behaviours.
The Michigan Studies
Researchers at the University of Michigan, whose work is referred to as “the Michigan studies,” also
developed two dimensions of leadership behaviour that they labelled employee-oriented and production-
oriented.
Employee-oriented leaders emphasize interpersonal relations. They take a personal interest in the needs of
their subordinates and accept individual differences among members.
Production-oriented leaders, in contrast, tend to emphasize the technical or task aspects of the job. They are
mainly concerned with making sure the group accomplishes its tasks, and the group members are simply a
means to that end.
Leadership Grid A two-dimensional grid outlining 81 different leadership styles.
Blake and Mouton developed a graphic portrayal of a two-dimensional view of leadership style. They
proposed a Leadership Grid based on the styles of “concern for people” and “concern for production,” which
essentially represent the Ohio State dimensions of consideration and initiating structure, or the Michigan
dimensions of employee orientation and production orientation.
The grid has 9 possible positions along each axis, creating 81 different positions in which the leader’s style
may fall, but emphasis has been placed on 5: impoverished management (1,1); authority-obedience
management (9,1); middle-of-the-road management (5,5); country club management (1,9); and team
management (9,9). The grid shows the dominating factors in a leader’s thinking with respect to how to get
results from people, without focusing on what the specific results are.

The Leadership Grid

A lengthy review of the results of behavioural studies supports the idea that people oriented behaviour by
leaders is related to employee satisfaction and motivation, and leader effectiveness; meanwhile, production-
oriented behaviour by leaders is slightly more strongly related to performance by the leader, the group, and the
organization. The research also provides some insights into when leaders should be production oriented and
when they should be people oriented:

 When subordinates experience a lot of pressure because of deadlines or unclear tasks, leaders who are
people oriented will increase employee satisfaction and performance.
 When the task is interesting or satisfying, there is less need for leaders to be people oriented.
 When it’s clear how to perform the task and what the goals are, leaders who are people oriented will
increase employee satisfaction, while those who are task oriented will increase dissatisfaction.
  When people don’t know what to do or individuals don’t have the knowledge or skills to do the job,
it’s more important for leaders to be production oriented than people oriented.

2.1.4. Contingency Leadership Theory: Does the Situation Matter?

As research on leadership developed, it became clear that predicting leadership success was more complex
than simply isolating a few traits or preferable behaviours. Starting in the 1960s, leadership theories began to
examine the situational factors that affect a leader’s ability to act. This research pointed out that not all leaders
can lead in every situation.

Situational or contingency theories:Theories that proposethat leadership effectivenessdepends on the

situation.

Situational, or contingency, theories of leadership try to isolate critical situational factors that affect leadership
effectiveness. The theories consider the degree of structure in the task being performed, the quality of leader-
member relations, the leader’s position power, group norms, information availability, and employee
acceptance of leader’s decisions, employee maturity, and the clarity of the employee’s role. We discuss four
situational theories below: the Fiedler contingency model, Hersey and Blanchard’s situational leadership
theory, path-goal theory, and substitutes for leadership.

All of these theories focus on the relationship of the leader to followers, and there is broad support for the idea
that this relationship is important.

Fiedler Contingency Model

The first comprehensive contingency model for leadership was developed by Fred Fiedler. The Fiedler
contingency model proposes that effective group performance depends on the proper match between the
leader’s style and the degree to which the situation gives control to the leader. Fiedler created the least
preferred co-worker (LPC) questionnaire to determine whether individuals were mainly interested in good
personal relations with co-workers, and thus relationship-oriented, or mainly interested in productivity, and
thus task-oriented.

Fiedler assumed that an individual’s leadership style is fixed. Therefore, if a situation requires a task-oriented
leader and the person in that leadership position is relationship oriented, either the situation has to be modified
or the leader must be removed and replaced for optimum effectiveness to be achieved.

Fiedler identified three contingency dimensions that together define the situation a leader faces:
• Leader-member relations. The degree of confidence, trust, and respect members has in their leader.

• Task structure. The degree to which the job assignments are procedure (that is, structured or unstructured).

• Position power. The degree of influence a leader has over power variables such as hiring, firing, discipline,
promotions, and salary increases.

Fiedler stated that the better the leader-member relations, the more highly structured the job, and the stronger
the position power, the more control the leader has. He suggested that task-oriented leaders perform best in
situations of high and low control, while relationship- oriented leaders perform best in moderate control
situations. In a high-control situation, a leader can “get away” with task orientation, because the relationships
are good and followers are easily influenced. In a low-control situation (which is marked by poor relations, ill-
defined task, and low influence), task orientation may be the only thing that makes it possible to get
something done. In a moderate-control situation, the leader’s relationship orientation may smooth the way to
getting things done.

Hersey and Blanchard’s Situational Leadership Theory

Paul Hersey and Ken Blanchard have developed a leadership model that has gained a strong following among
management development specialists. This model—called situational leadership theory (SLT)—has been
included in leadership training programs at more than 400 of the Fortune 500 companies; and more than one
million managers a year from a wide variety of organizations are taught its basic elements. SLT views the
leader-follower relationship as similar to that of a parent and child. Just as a parent needs to give up control as
a child becomes more mature and responsible, so too should leaders. Hersey and Blanchard identify four
specific leader behaviours—from highly directive to highly [Link] most effective behaviour
depends on a follower’s ability and motivation. SLT says that if a follower is unable and unwilling to do a
task, the leader needs to give clear and specific directions (in other words, be highly directive). If a follower is
unable and willing, the leader needs to display high task orientation to compensate for the follower’s lack of
ability, and high relationship orientation to get the follower to “buy into” the leader’s desires (in other words,
“sell” the task). If the follower is able and unwilling, the leader needs to adopt a supportive and participative
style. Finally, if the employee is both able and willing, the leader does not need to do much (in other words, a
laissez-faire approach will work)

Path-Goal Theory

Currently, one of the most respected approaches to leadership is path-goal theory. Developed by University
of Toronto professor Martin Evans in the late 1960s, it was later expanded on by Robert House (formerly at
the University of Toronto, but now at the Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania).
Path-goal theory is a contingency model of leadership that extracts key elements from the Ohio State
leadership research on initiating structure and consideration and from the expectancy theory of motivation.

The essence of the theory is that it is the leader’s job to assist followers attain their goals and to provide the
necessary direction and/or support to ensure that their individual goals are compatible with the overall goals of
the group or organization. The term path-goal derives from the belief that effective leaders both clarify the
path to help their followers achieve their work goals and make the journey along the path easier by reducing
roadblocks and pitfalls.

According to this theory, leaders should follow three guidelines to be effective:

• Determine the outcomes subordinates want. These might include good pay, job security, interesting work,
and the autonomy to do one’s job.

• Reward individuals with their desired outcomes when they perform well.

• Let individuals know what they need to do to receive rewards (that is, the path to the goal), remove any
barriers that would prevent high performance, and express confidence that individuals have the ability to
perform well.

Path-goal theory identifies four leadership behaviours that might be used in different situations to motivate
individuals:

 The directive leader lets followers know what is expected of them, schedules work to be done, and
gives specific guidance as to how to accomplish tasks. This closely parallels the Ohio State dimension
of initiating structure. This behaviouris best used when individuals have difficulty doing tasks or the
tasks are [Link] would not be very helpful when used with individuals, who are already highly
motivated, have the skills and abilities to do the task, and understand the requirements of the task.
 The supportive leader is friendly and shows concern for the needs of followers. This is essentially
synonymous with the Ohio State dimension of consideration. This behaviouris often recommended
when individuals are under stress or otherwise show that they need to be supported.
 The participative leader consults with followers and uses their suggestions before making a decision.
This behaviouris most appropriate when individuals need to buy in to decisions.
 The achievement-oriented leader sets challenging goals and expects followers to perform at their
highest level. This behaviour works well with individuals who like challenges and are highly
motivated. It would be less effective with less capable individuals or those who are highly stressed
from overwork.
 The theory identifies two variables that affect the leadership behaviour–outcome relationship:
environmental variables that are outside the control of the employee and variables that are part of the
 personal characteristics of the employee. One question that arises from contingency theories is whether
leaders can actually adjust their behaviourto various situations. As we know, individuals differ in their
behavioral flexibility. Some people show considerable ability to adjust their behaviourto external,
situational factors; they are adaptable. Others, however, exhibit high levels of consistency regardless
of the situation. High self-monitors are usually able to adjust their leadership styles to suit changing
situations better than low self-monitors. Clearly, if an individual’s leadership style range is very
narrow and he or she cannot or will not adjust (that is, the person is a low self-monitor), that individual
will be successful only in very specific situations suitable to his or her style.

Substitutes for Leadership

The previous three theories argue that leaders are needed, but that leaders should consider the situation in
determining the style of leadership to adopt. However, numerous studies collectively demonstrate that, in
many situations, leaders’ actions are irrelevant. Certain individual, job, and organizational variables can act as
substitutes for leadership or neutralize the leader’s ability to influence his or her followers. If employees have
appropriate experience, training, or “professional” orientation or if employees are indifferent to organizational
rewards, the effect of leadership can be replaced or neutralized. Experience and training, for instance, can
replace the need for a leader’s support or ability to create structure and reduce task ambiguity. Jobs that are
inherently unambiguous and routine, provide their own feedback, or are intrinsically satisfying generally
require less handson leadership. Organizational characteristics such as explicit formalized goals, rigid rules
and procedures, and cohesive work groups can replace formal leadership. Recent research has supported the
importance of ability and intrinsic satisfaction in considering performance outcomes.

2.2. Contemporary theory of Leadership

The leadership theories that we have discussed were developed at a time when most organizations were
structured in traditional hierarchies where there were classic lines of command. Today, leadership theories
also try to explain how certain leaders can achieve extraordinary levels of performance from their followers,
and they stress symbolic

and emotionally appealing leadership behaviours. In what follows we consider transactional leadership,
transformational leadership, and charismatic leadership.
Transactional leaders: Leaders who guide or motivate their followers in the direction of established goals
by clarifying role and task requirements. Such leaders guide or motivate their followers in the direction of
established goals by clarifying role and task requirements. In some styles of transactional leadership, the
leader uses rewarding and recognizing behaviours. This approach results in performance that meets
expectations, though rarely does one see results that exceed expectations. In other styles of transactional
leadership, the leader emphasizes correction and possible punishment rather than rewards and recognition.
This style “results in performance below expectations, and discourages innovation and initiative in the
workplace.” Of course, leaders should not ignore poor performance, but effective leaders emphasize how to
achieve expectations rather than dwell on mistakes.

Transformational leaders

Some leaders inspire followers to transcend their own self-interests for the good of the organization and have
a profound and extraordinary effect on their followers. These are transformational leaders. Transformational
leaders change followers’ awareness of issues by helping them looks at old problems in new ways, and they
are able to excite, arouse, and inspire followers to exert extra effort to achieve group goals

Charismatic leadership

Leadership that critically examines the status quo with a view to developing and articulating future strategic
goals or vision for the organization, and then leading organizational members to achieve these goals through
empowering strategies.

Sharing a Vision

Perhaps one of the key components of charismatic leadership is the ability to articulate a vision. A vision has
clear and compelling imagery that offers an innovative way to improve, which recognizes and draws on
traditions, and connects to actions that people can take to realize change. Vision taps people’s emotions and
energy. Properly articulated, a vision creates the enthusiasm that people have for sporting events and other
leisure-time activities, bringing the energy and commitment to the workplace.

The key properties of a vision seem to be inspirational possibilities that are value-centred and realizable, with
superior imagery and articulation. Visions should be able to create possibilities that are inspirational and
unique, and offer a new order that can produce organizational distinction. A vision is likely to fail if it does
not offer a view of the future that is clearly and demonstrably better for the organization and its members.

Desirable visions fit the times and circumstances and reflect the uniqueness of the organization. People in the
organization must also believe that the vision is attainable.

It should be perceived as challenging yet doable. Visions that have clear articulation and powerful imagery are
more easily grasped and accepted.

2.2.1. Characteristics of Transactional and Transformational Leaders

Transactional and transformational leadership should not be viewed as opposing approaches to getting things
done. Transformational leadership is built on top of transactional leadership it produces levels of employee
effort and performance that go beyond what would occur with a transactional approach alone.

Transactional Leader

 Contingent rewards: Contracts exchange of rewards for effort, promises rewards for good
performance, recognizes accomplishments.
 Management by exception (active): Watches and searches for deviations from rules and standards,
takes corrective action.
 Management by exception (passive): Intervenes only if standards are not met.
 Laissez-faire: Abdicates responsibilities, avoids making decisions.
Transformational Leader

 Charisma: Provides vision and sense of mission, instills pride, gains respect and trust.
 Inspiration: Communicates high expectations, uses symbols to focus efforts, and expresses important
purposes in simple ways.
 Intellectual stimulation: Promotes intelligence, rationality, and careful problem solving.
 Individualized consideration: Gives personal attention, treats each employee individually, coaches,
and advises.
Servant Leadership
Servant leadership is both a leadership philosophy and set of leadership practice. Traditional leadership
generally involves the accumulation and exercise of power by one at the top of the pyramid. By comparison
the servant leader shares power; puts the others needs first and help people develop and perform as highly as
possible. The concept of “servant leadership” requires us to encourage others toward a life and career of
service and to assume the position of being the “servant of the servants.” The leader owes something to the
institution he or she leads. The leader is seen in this context as steward rather than owner or proprietor.

This type of leadership emphasizes increased service to others, a holistic approach to work promoting a sense
of community and the sharing of power in decision making.

Characteristics to the development of servant leaders:

 Listening- they need to listen intently to others. listening and reflecting regularly is essential for the
growth the servant leader
 Empathy- people need to be accepted & recognized for their special & unique spirits especially when
their behaviouror performance is unacceptable
 Healing- learning to heal is a powerful force for transformation & integration. This is a great strength
for servant leaders to help make people they connect with whole
  Awareness- general awareness and self awareness strengthens the servant leader
 Persuasion- rather than using the leader’s position of authority these leaders are effective at building
consensus in groups
 Conceptualization- Servant leaders have the ability to think beyond day to day and balance with daily
duties
 Foresight- the ability to foresee the likely outcome of a situation. This allows servant leaders to
understand the lessons from the past, the realities of the present and the likely consequence of a
decision for the future
 Stewardship- assumes first and foremost a commitment to serving the needs of others
 Commitment to the growth of people- servant leaders believe that people have an intrinsic value
beyond their tangible contributions as workers
 Building community- the servant leader focuses on building a community with their team by
demonstrating their own unlimited liability
2.3. Leadership skills and competencies
Leaders use three types of skills-technical, human and conceptual.
 Technical Skill. It refers to a person’s knowledge and ability in any type of process or technique. For
example, the skills learned by chartered accountants, engineers, etc. This skill is the distinguishing
feature of job performance at the operating level; but an employee is promoted to leadership
responsibilities, his technical skill become less important. Conversely, he increasingly depends on the
technical skills of subordinates.
 Human Skill. It is the ability to work effectively with people and to build teamwork. No leader can
escape from human skill. It is the major part of the leadership behavior.
 Conceptual Skill. This is the ability of the leader to think in terms of models, framework and broad
relationships such as long-term plans. Conceptual skill deals with ideas while human skill concerns
people and technical skill is with things.
Leadership Competencies
From a foundation of Values and Ethics, leaders deliver results through strategic thinking,
engagement, and management excellence.

Leadership Competencies

Yukul identified four common areas of competence shared by all leaders.

Management of attention – The ability to communicate a sense of outcome, goal, or direction that attracts
followers.
Management of meaning – The ability to create and communicate meaning with clarity and understanding.
Management of trust – The ability to be reliable and consistent so people can count on them.
Management of self – The ability to know one’s self and to use one’s skills within limits of strengths and
weaknesses
2.4. Good Versus Bad Leaders
 After leaving a meeting with a bad leader, you feel exhausted and de-motivated. After leaving a
meeting with a good leader, you feel rejuvenated, motivated, and even inspired.
 Bad leaders set appointments and are late for them or don't show up at all; good leaders are early,
greet you, and respect your time.
 Bad leaders talk down to you; good leaders talk you up.
 Bad leaders put themselves and their emotions above the team; good leaders put themselves last
and the mission and the team first.
 Bad leaders almost never utilize this expression "you have two ears and one mouth listen twice as
much as you speak." Good leaders not only use that expression but live by it.
 Bad leaders think they are the team; good leaders know they are a part of a team.
 Bad leaders develop themselves; good leaders develop other good leaders.
 Bad leaders expect you to know what they are thinking; good leaders communicate their thoughts.

2.2 Leadership style

2.2.1 Autocratic leader

An Autocratic leader centralises power and decision making in him. Such a leader considers human values as
irrelevant. He considers that most people are in need of strong direction and control as they are self-centered,
un-co-operative, indolent and naturally dependent. He is intolerant of conflict in sub-ordinates and tries to
suppress it by not listening to it. He perceives his team as a productive and economic entity and matches
manpower with methods, machines, materials, and money. He has too much reliance on authority to control
his junior and constantly ignore consideration and respect, mounting pressure all the time. At the same time,
he feels himself on the satisfaction of his ego like the alcoholic clinging to his bottle or the performer
bunkering after applause. As a natural reaction to such a leader, questioning and resistance emerges in the
group at the earliest opportunity through non-co-operation.
Effective when . . .
■ Time is limited and a call arises for urgent leadership.
■ individuals/group lack skill and knowledge.
■ the group does not know each other.
■ a new employee is just learning the job and is in a new environment;

 The leader is competent and a good coach; the employee is motivated

to learn a new skill

Ineffective when . . .
■ developing a strong sense of team is the goal.
■ the group members have some degree of skill/knowledge.
■ the group wants an element of spontaneity in its work.

2.2.2Democratic leader

The other style of leadership, namely, the democratic style, assumes that the employees are intelligent and
educated adults capable of managing their own affairs in a responsible manner and they react positively to
opportunities for expressing their natural human attributes and negatively to deprivation of such opportunities.
In a democratic system, every one cannot have his way; he can only have his say. As long as in small face-to-
face meeting people have the opportunity to say what they feel, there is great deal of satisfaction derived by
the participants, differences are resolved through consensus and dissidents usually keep back their views in
support of group goals.

Effective when . . .
■ the situation allows sufficient time.
■ the group members have some degree of skill or knowledge.
■ the leader knows the problem well, but wants to create a team where
the employees take ownership of the project; the group is motivated
and/or a sense of team exists to gain more commitment.

■ the employees know their jobs and want to become part of the team.
Ineffective when . . .
■ the group is unmotivated.
■ group members lack skill and knowledge.
■ a high degree of conflict is present.
2.2.3Liaises- fair or free –rein leadership

Lasses fair or Free –rein leadership style is a complete delegation of authority to subordinates so that they
must plan, motivate & control and be responsible for their own actions. The free- rein manager avoids power
& relinquishes the leadership positions.
Effective when . . .
■ a high degree of skill and motivation is shown in your group
or when an employee is able to analyze the situation and determine
what needs to be done, as well as how to do it.
■ a sense of team exists.
■ the routine is familiar to participants; by handing over ownership, a leader can empower his group to
achieve their goals.
■ the situation might call for the leader to be at other places doing other things.
Ineffective when . . .
■ a low sense of team/interdependence exists.
■ group members have a low degree of skill and knowledge.
■ the group expects to be told what to do.
A good leader uses all three styles, depending on what forces are involved
between the followers, the leader, and the situation.

Bradford and Lippit (1945) have Classified Leaders into Four Types

1. Hard Boiled Autocrat. Here, the person on is a rigid disciplinarian and hand out orders, which he expects
to be obeyed immediately. Consequently, the group will be submissive but resentful.

2. Benevolent Autocrat. Here, the person dominates all the employees but he himself rarely recognises his
autocracy. He is the source of all standards and demands strict adherence of the standards set by him.
Consequently the group will be submissive, lethargic and lacking in initiative.

3. Laissez-Faire leaders. Here, the person busies himself with paper work, sets no goals and makes no
decision and generally thinks of himself as a “good fellow” Consequently, the group has a sloppy and low
output, becomes directionless and indulges in scape-goating.

4. Democratic supervision. Here, the decision is made by the group on a shared basis. The group also
devotes time to planning and the reasons for a particular decision are made known to all. This process tends to
satisfy the basic needs of the group members and consequently enthusiasm and confidence is high.

2.3. Factors Affecting leadership Style

There are a few factors that have a major impact on the choice of leadership styles

a) The manager’s Management philosophy

The management philosophy of a manger is basically determined by his or her assumptions about the nature of people.
Whether managers are aware of it or not most of them have a philosophy that influences their style in working with
people. Several other factors influence this philosophy:

The manager’s family and early school environment.

The management’s experience and training in the area of leadership
The manager’s present working environment, including the type of work and the general management system in the
work place
McGregor’s theory X and theory Y is one of the best – known approaches to the study of management philosophy. He
contrasted two sets of assumptions he or she adheres to. A manager’s leadership style is affected by the set of
assumptions he or she adheres to. The following include the most significant assumptions of theory X.

The average human being dislikes work and will avoid it if possible.
Because of this human trait most people must be coerced, directed or threatened with punishment to get them to achieve
organizational goals.
The average human being prefers to be directed, wishes to avoid responsibility, has little ambition and seeks security.
Managers who accept the assumptions of theory X are inclined to prefer an autocratic leadership style. In basic
assumptions of theory Y include the following.

The majority of employees will respond as positively to work as they do to play or rest.
People will exercise self – direction and self-c0ntrol in attaining goals to with they are committed. External control and
the threat of punishment are not the only means to organization goals.
Commitment to organizational objectives is a function of rewards associated with the attainment of objectives.
Avoidance of responsibility, an emphasis on security an limited drive is for the most part, consequences of experience,
not fundamental characteristics of human nature.
The ability to exercise a high degree of imagination, ingenuity and creativity when striving to solve an organizational
problem is widely distributed talent among the population.
In an industrial society the intellectual potential of the average employee is only partially utilized.
Mangers that adhere to the theory Y assumptions will tend to prefer a supportive and participative leadership style.

McGregor believed that a manager’s leadership style determines staff behavior. If a manager treated staff as though they
were lazy and lacked a sense of responsibility, they would fulfill those exceptions. On the other hand, if the staff were
treated as though they were mature, responsible people, they would act accordingly. McGregor was of his opinion that
the assumptions help by manager were self – fulfilling prophecies.

b) The followers’ Maturity Level

Maturity level defines, as the state of person is drive and need for achievement. It is the product of his or her
experience, education, attitude, and willingness as well as ability to accept responsibility. It is important that these
maturity levels should be considered only in relation to a specific task to be performed. The following formula expresses
the maturity concept.

Maturity = Ability + Willingness

If staffs are low on maturity, the manger should use a different style from the style he would use with a mature staff.

In order to maximize the leader-follower relationship, the leader must first determine the task-specific
outcomes the followers are to accomplish on an individual and group basis.
Readiness in situational leadership is defined as the extent to which a follower demonstrates the ability and willingness
to accomplish a specific task. Readiness is not a personal characteristic; it is not an evaluation of person’s traits, values,
age, and so on. Readiness is how ready a person is to perform a particular task. This concept of readiness has to do with
specific situation-not with any total sense of readiness. All persons tend to be more or less ready in a relation to a
specific task, function or objective that a leader is attempting to accomplish. So leaders have to understand that they
may have to behave differently one on one with members of their group from the way they do with the group as a
whole.

The two major components of readiness are ability and willingness.

Ability is the knowledge, experience, and skill that an individual or group brings to a particular task or
activity.
When considering the ability level of others, one must be task-specific. It is essential to focus on the
specific outcome desired and to consider the ability of the followers in light of that outcome.

Willingness is the extent to which an individual or a group has the confidence, Commitment, and motivation
to accomplish a specific task. The term unwilling might be most appropriate when for same reason; the
individuals have slipped, or lost some of their commitment and motivation.
Even though the concepts of ability and willingness are different, it is important to remember that they are an interacting
in twine system. This means that a significant change in one will affect the whole. The extent to which followers bring
willingness into specific situations affects the use of their present ability. And it affects the extent to which they will
grow and develop competence and ability. Similarly, the amount of knowledge, experience, and skill brought to a
specific task will often affect confidence, commitment, and motivation. Readiness levels are the different combinations
of ability and willingness that people bring to each task.

Leadership-Participation Style
This model is based on a rational-deductive approach. The leader asks himself or herself a number of questions in
deciding to adopt a directive or participative style in decision making, and whether to do so with individual members or
the whole group. This model is also referred to as a decision-making theory.
Vroom and Jago (1995) provide the following presentation of the basic model. The leader chooses from five possible
decision processes that differ in the form and amount of participation. These can be seen as running parallel to the
autocratic-democratic continuum and include the following:

• You reach a decision alone, employing whatever facts you have at hand.

• You reach a decision alone, but first seek specific data from those who report to you.

• You consult one-on-one with those who report to you, describing the problem and seeking advice but still making the
final decision alone.

• You consult with those who report to you in a meeting on the situation, take advice and choose one or more options
alone.

• You devote a meeting to the situation and help the group to concur on a decision. Eleven decision heuristics
(contingency questions) are used to analyze the problem, and based on the answers to these questions; appropriate
decision behaviour (i.e. how much participation should be used) is suggested. The use of a leadership style (or styles)
depends on whether the aim is to improve decision quality, improve decision commitment, and reduce decision costs
(time) or increase subordinate development. This model can be classified as a contingency theory in terms of its
consideration of the type of situation. However, it differs from theories such as those of Fiedler or Hersey and Blanchard
which deal with relatively stable situational factors, implying a difference between managers who are in different
circumstances. The Vroom-Jago model requires the leader to adjust his or her style to different situations. The
situational unit of analysis is the immediate decision problem and the leader's behaviour varies in as much as he or she is
presented with a variety of dissimilar decision problems. A descriptive model, the aim of which is to describe how
leaders decide if and when to use a participative style, was also developed. The unit of analysis is the person rather than
the situation, and it is determined how effectively each person responds to a number of decision- making situations.
Although the situation has been shown to explain more variance in behaviour than the overall leadership style, there are
factors that lead to a disposition towards autocracy or participation. These person effects include industry differences,
level in the organization, function, gender and culture. Person-by-situation effects apply when different implicit theories
concerning the usefulness of participation and the expected outcomes of its use result in differences in behaviour
between persons, given a specific situation.

Leader-Member Exchange Style

The vertical-dyad linkage or leader-member exchange (LMX) theory as one that explains leadership and leader-follower
relationships as an interactive process. It focuses on the group maintenance behaviour referred to in the section on
leadership . The interaction linkage between leader and follower is one of mutual influence and that the relationship
between the leader and each individual follower should be considered instead of focusing on the relationship with the
group as a whole. The leader develops a unique relationship or exchange with each follower instead of using the same
style in dealing with followers.

Central to this theory are the concepts of in-group and out-group. The extent to which the leader treats the follower as an
out-group member versus the extent to which the follower is treated as an in-group member falls on a continuum of
leader-member roles. In-group members are allowed more independence and also receive more attention and other
rewards, resulting in better performance and greater satisfaction. Leader-member exchange theory is furthermore based
on the assumption that social interaction represents a form of exchange. For example, the group provides the leader with
esteem in exchange for the leader's unique contribution to group goals.