THE MODELS OF LEADERSHIP

Besides simply experiencing and understanding those experiences, an understanding of the formal theories of leadership is also important. Leadership, according to Hughes, is both a science and an art. A personal experience is associated with the artistic part of leadership: It is a creative and emotional process. Formal theories contribute to the scientific part, the mechanical and rule-based aspects of leadership.

While there have been numerous models on leadership throughout history, there is no “correct,” clear way of understanding leadership. There are no laws of leadership – only different ways to map out the interpersonal interactions that take place within a leadership context. To be consistent with the philosophy practised throughout this website, I will outline some of the popular models of leadership. If and how these models should be employed in your own life is up to you. Perhaps, one model will be particularly useful for you as the president of a club. Perhaps you must rely on different models for different situations. As always, I will provide examples of my own personal experiences where I’ve tried to follow the “rules” suggested by a particular model.

Power and Influence

Before you are introduced to specific models of leadership, it is perhaps wise to discuss the meaning of power and influence. As you may recall, the definition of leadership proposed earlier suggested that influence between members is a defining characteristic of leadership.

It is understandable that everyone working or simply interacting together may not have the same values, beliefs, or desires. While individuality is important, so is the importance of unity. If two different people desire to do the same job differently, conflict occurs: Influence is required so that one or both of these individuals modify their attitudes so that a common will is obtained.

People influence others through power. In 1959, French and Raven proposed five sources of power that is still applied by leadership theorists today:

The following proposed models of leadership all involve some sort of power. In some models, power is dominant in one individual – a specific leader who holds full responsibility and influence over subordinates. In other models, power may be balanced between various members of a group in a cooperative relationship.

The Trait Model

The first widely recognized model of leadership is known as the trait model or Great Man Theory. In the early 1900s, the traits of great historical leaders – e.g. Gandhi, Thomas Jefferson, Lincoln, etc. – were studied to identify what it was that these people “possessed” that others did not. Such a model of leadership is concerned primarily with the leader and not the followers or the situation. The model was popularized by a series of relating models. The trait theorists were not concerned with what methods these leaders used to achieve their ends. They felt that it was not necessarily what they did that made them great, it was a type of inner quality or character trait that made them adaptable to many situations.

For instance, Mann (1959) felt that all leaders possessed a high standard of intelligence, masculinity, adjustment, dominance, extroversion, and conservatism. Kirkpatrick & Locke’s (1991) list of qualities includes drive, motivation, integrity, confidence, cognitive ability, and task knowledge. According to these theorists, a great leader would simply emphasize his trait strengths to motivate others and be effective himself. However, as you may have noticed, there was never a consensus made between trait theorists on what exactly were the specific, finite character traits that set great leaders apart from each other. The only thing they really agreed was that great leaders were special; they had qualities that were born within them.

This last point gives this model a major flaw because it devalues leadership as a learnable and developable process. However, in recent modifications of the trait model, theorists have suggested that certain qualities such as confidence, integrity, or motivation can be developed upon. Such is the view of a related model known as Transformational leadership.

Transformational Leadership Model

Assuming that you feel you do not have all of the leadership qualities outlined in the trait model –- don’t worry! Most leadership models believe that leadership is not some natural quality but rather, leadership can be trained. Transformational leadership is quite similar to the trait model in that it places the greatest important on the qualities – not techniques – of the leader. However, unlike the trait theory, the transformational leadership model suggests that leaders develop, rather than were born with, their leadership qualities. Another difference is that while the trait approach ultimately views one magnificent leader dominating over others, the transformational model also emphasizes the abilities and motives of the followers.

The primary power associated with transformational leadership is that of referent power. Unlike many other leadership models, transformational leadership values genuine human relationships based on trust between members of a group – a characteristic that has made the model appealing to many. Other leadership models often influence others through rewards and punishments. Politicians promise tax cuts for voters if they will vote for them. Managers may offer promotions for dedicated workers. Parents may punish their children if they do not achieve a certain academic grade. Transformational leadership, on the other hand, has a mutual respect between members of a group. For instance, Gandhi was a transformational leader – he had tremendous respect for his followers, recognizing that the power to change was in their hands; his job was to guide them to that power while being influenced by his “followers” himself. As remarked by Avolio and Gibbons’ (1988) work, “Developing transformational leaders,” the ultimate impact of a strong transformational leader is to increase a follower’s sense of self – his confidence in his competence and self-efficacy. In fact, often in transformational leadership, a legitimate leader encourages others to become leaders themselves. A transformational leader would agree with the famous words of Kennedy: “Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.”

So what exactly is a transformational leader? They key to a transformational leader is the values that he possesses. Not only this, but a transformational leader takes these values and inspires others so that together, they work towards a unified vision. In the end, according to transformational leadership researcher Bass (Leadership and performance beyond expectations, 1985), because of the unified vision, group members are motivated and achieve beyond what is expected. Ideally, everyone sees the group’s goals greater than his personal goals. A strong transformational leader is able to make the unified vision possible.

As adapted from Northouse’s, “Leadership – Theory and Practice”

Bass proposed several reasons why transformational leaders are effective in influencing others:

(1) Charisma – Transformational leaders are highly respected by others; they are in many sense role models. Others trust the character and vision of a transformational leader.

(2) Inspirational Motivation – Transformational leaders place high standards on others; he encourages them to contribute to the shared vision or goal, making them feel that they belong to a greater purpose. He is a morale-booster.

(3) Intellectual stimulation – Transformational leaders have faith in the intellect of others, constantly encouraging them to be creative and innovative in their work. He is not afraid to be challenged by the opinions of others. He trusts the competency of others and does not want to dictate their every move.

(4) Individualized consideration – Transformational leaders promote a supportive work atmosphere where he listens to the individual needs of others. By doing so, he makes others feel complete in their individualisms.

Team Leadership Model

In university, there are often times when you have to work (and learn!) within a group. Perhaps you are working on a group project or maybe you are on a committee without a legitimate leader. According to Northouse, within the recent changes of our world (i.e. global economic competition, workforce diversity, expanding technology, greater concern for individualism, etc.), the team leadership model has grown in popularity: “The use of organizational teams has been found to lead to greater productivity, more effective use of resources, better decisions and problem solving, better quality products and services, and increased innovation and creativity.” The difficulty, however, is that team leadership is very complex with many branching theories; I will certainly not provide a complete picture of it. Similar to transformational leadership, the team leadership model does not believe in the dominance of a legitimate leader; in fact, it takes an even more equalitarian view on leadership. According to Wellins, Byham, and Wilson (1991), while a formal leader may exist within the group, his role is usually limited, serving as a facilitator and a link to external groups. Further, the role of formal leader may rotate among the team members.

Hackman and Walton (1986) suggested that team leadership composed of four major functions:

(1)Diagnosing group deficiencies (monitoring/internal)

(2)Taking remedial action to correct deficiencies (executive action/internal)

(3)Forecasting impending environment changes (monitoring/external)

(4)Taking preventative action in response to environmental changes (executive action/external)

They further stressed that these functions do not have to be carried out by an official group leader; anyone or everyone within the group may perform them.

According to Drecksel (1991), team leadership is also (very much!) unlike transformational leadership in another way: The leader should not have a rigid set of beliefs nor should he impose these beliefs on others. Both his beliefs and actions should be flexible so that they adjust to the different interpersonal relations within the group as well as the external environmental (situational) changes. The functions of a team leader (or team leaders) should be guided by clear goals: What standard of teamwork should one try to achieve? Larson and Lafasto (1989) tried to gain insight into what makes an effective team:

(1) Clear, Elevating Goal – There must be a way that the group can tell whether or not the group goal or personal goal has been realized. Often vague tasks get in the way of clear evaluation; due to the ambiguity, group members may become unmotivated.

(2) Results-Driven Structure – The organization of the group should be adapted to whatever goal or result they are trying to achieve. For instance, problem-solving teams may be organized so that the structure emphasizes trust above other characteristics, encouraging everyone is encouraged to contribute. Stephen Covey in “7 Habits” gives the example of a businessman who would reward a special employee with a free vacation despite actually aiming for more effective teamwork. The businessman, in this case, did not produce a results-driven structure.

(3) Competent Team Members – Group members need to be competent in both technical aspects of the work as well as interpersonal skills necessary to work together.

(4) Collaborative Climate and Unified Commitment – The members should develop a sense of trust and respect for one another so that they can collaborate, sharing ideas effectively, take risks together, and compensate for each other.

(5) Standards of excellence – This is sort of tied in with the idea of a clear, elevating goal. There should be a standard of performance expected from many individuals.

(6) External support and Recognition – This aspect deals with such things as financial services, supplies, and resources to accomplish the group goal. There should also be a clear sense of reward for the group members after completing the goal.

In Hughes, “Leadership: Enhancing the Lessons of Experience,” the author proposes an interesting model to analyze group leadership. Based on the belief that leadership is a process, Hughes breaks down the process into inputs (the foundations of the group, focusing on the group members, their interactions, and how they are organized), the process measures (evaluations), and the group effectiveness (the final product of the group). Notice that leadership can be applied to many areas – individual factors, group design, and organizational context – and is also involved with evaluating the process measures.

:: DIAGRAM GOES HERE ::

The above diagram might look like a complete mess to you. Indeed, it does look intimidating and confusing. However, the actual ideas behind the diagram are actually quite straightforward. Probably the best way to show you how it works is to give a real life example. Imagine that your team has just completed a mediocre project. After an evaluation, you decide that many of the group members did not put in enough effort (P-1). According to the model, you would look at what inputs could have affected this lack of effort. You begin by looking at Individual Factors, specifically at I-1 (corresponding with P-1). Were the group members interested in the project? Perhaps they are simply not interested in what they are doing, and thus, they were not motivated. You can also examine the Group Design, concentrating on G-1. Was the task structure so ambiguous that no one in the group knew what they were expected? Perhaps they simply didn’t know how to work on such a confusing project effectively! Finally, we take a look at the Organizational Context, focusing on O-1. Were they rewarded properly for their hard work? Maybe they simply thought that it was not worth it to put in so much effort because they would get nothing out of the experience. When we pinpoint the source of the problem, we begin to solve it based on the suggestions in the Leadership box. Did you notice how each time, we focused on the input number (i.e. I-1, G-1, O-1, etc.) that corresponds with the process measure number (P-1)? I-1, G-1, O-1 simply pinpoint to the most probable reasons: Other factors that correspond with other numbers (e.g. skills/abilities, I-2; authority, G-4; structure/design, O-4) should also be considered. Finally, notice that without Material Resources, Group effectiveness cannot be achieved.

A flaw in the model is that its tendency to oversimplify the situation, analyzing things in a highly mechanical way. Hughes pointed out this very flaw and admitted, “Nothing is that simple.” In any case, the model serves as a general guideline and has been supported by other researchers (Hackman, 1990. Hughes’ has also stated that the model has been adopted by several organizations.

Leader-Member Exchange Theory

The models at this point have all sort of implied that leaders treat everyone the same – a sense of equality amongst all group members. However, in life, this may not be the case. Thus, in 1975,the Leader-Member Exchange Theory (LMX) was proposed, illustrating that often, leaders distinguish group members in two categories: the “In-Group” and the “Out-Group.” Basically, based on how well a group member works, he may belong into one of these two groups:

· If a group member goes beyond his call of duty and/or enjoys having close contact with the leader, he may become a part of the In-Group; the in-group members contribute more to the group goal and in return, they receive greater rewards and benefits from the leader. For instance, they may receive more information, confidence, and concern from their leaders.

· If a group member is not interested in these greater responsibilities, he chooses to remain a part of the out-group. They receive the standard benefits as described by their job description.

A series of studies tried to find how the LMX model could be applied to the effectiveness of a group. The research (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Liden, Wayne, & Stilwell, 1993) suggested that the in-group, where there was a high level of interdependency between the formal leader and his followers, produced more positive evaluations, greater group participation, and better job attitudes. These findings led to a new approach in which a formal leader would try to include more people within his in-group, instead of simply a limited number.

According to Graen & Uhl-Bien (1991), the Out-Group to In-Group transition is marked by three stages:

(1) Stranger Phase – Interactions between formal leader and formal follower is based on a contractual relationship. In this stage, the follower is still a part of the Out-Group.

(2) Acquaintance Phase – This phase is sort of like a trial phase for the potential In-Group member. Now, the leader-follower relationship is less governed by contractual obligations and occurs more on a personal level, based on trust and respect for one another.

(3) Mature Partnership – This is the final phase marked by a higher interpersonal dependency between the formal leader and an In-Group member. In-Group individuals usually share mutual trust, respect, and obligation toward each other. Both the leader and the In-Group member realize that they share a high level of reciprocity: They influence each other. For instance, an In-Group member may be expected to do extra assignments; the formal leader also pays more personal attention to the In-Group member.

In short, it is recommended, based on the research of Graen and Uhl-Bien, to encourage members to become a part of the In-Group. Formal leaders should try to build trust with all of the members within his group. Notice how similar this philosophy is to the previously described models. Both transformational leadership and team leadership encourages active participation from the members, so that they may perform beyond their expected levels. Thus, you can see how leadership principles can be shared between different models.

Situational Model

The models that you have been introduced to thus far have all had a good amount of faith placed on the members of the group. They basically trust that if formal followers were given more freedom and trust from the formal leader, they can in many ways become leaders themselves. They are competent and skilled, and under effective leadership, they will naturally be motivated. The situational model, developed by Blanchard (1985) takes things from a different angle. Its philosophy is based on the fact that there is a variance in the competency of group members: In some cases, a group member can be highly motivated, competent, and easy to get along with; in others, the member may be unskilled and hard to approach. Thus, according to the situational approach, different situations determine the style of leadership.

Based on the model, leadership is composed of two sides. The directive side is responsible for such duties as giving directions, setting time lines, defining roles, and showing group members how to perform their jobs. Directive behaviours are often one-sided and impersonal: What to do? How to do it? Who to do it? The other side is the supportive side that helps group members feel comfortable about their job, themselves, and others around them. Examples of such behaviours include asking them for input, sharing information, listening to their opinions, and problem solving together. Where the leader wishes to strike his balance depends on the assessment of the situation, that is, how competent and committed the group member is at performing his duties. Effective leaders are able to make accurate assessments and match it with the right balance of leadership.

Overall, leaders can be categorized by the following:

· (L1) High directive-low supportive style – Leader focuses on the attainment of the group goal without much personal interaction with the group members. His primary job is to give orders and then supervise.

· (L2) High directive-high supportive style – Leader acts as a coach, focusing both on goal achievement and the emotional status of the group members. The leader may encourage other group members to express their ideas and thoughts but the leader will ultimately have the final say on what and how the goal is to be accomplished.

· (L3) High supportive-low directive style – The leader is primarily concerned with the emotional status of the group members (e.g. listens, praises, asks for feedback) but gives workers more freedom in their day-to-day activities. He acts as a facilitator in their duties.

· (L4) Low supportive-low directive style – The leader no longer interferes with the duties of the group members. The group members are autonomous, responsible for getting the job done according to their own desires. The leader also does not need to provide social comfort. Usually, after agreeing on what the group members are to do (establishing a clear goal), the leader’s participation is limited.

Followers are evaluated based on their development level, their level of competence and commitment to their duties. The competence level measures how proficient they are at the technical aspects of their duties. Do they have the skill to accomplish their jobs? The commitment level measures their interest and emotional attachment to their duties. In other words, do they like and value their jobs? Like leaders, followers are categorized into four groups:

· (F1) Low competence-high commitment – A new employee often fits this description: They may not be familiar with their new duties but are excited about doing their jobs.

· (F2) Some competence-low commitment – These members are more experienced than F1 followers but may have lost some of the initial enthusiasm and motivation towards their duties.

· (F3) High competence-some commitment – These members have gained the necessary skills to perform their duties. However, they may have a lack of commitment towards their duties, their personal goals may differ from the group goal.

· (F4) High competence-high commitment – These members are the highest in their development level. They are both competent and motivated.

Thus, according to Blanchard, a leader must analyze and identify the developmental level of a follower and then link that developmental level to the corresponding leadership style. The leadership model suggests a one-to-one relationship between developmental level and leadership style. For instance, an F1 follower matches with L1 leadership style; F2 follower matches with L2 leadership style. Overall, the situational leadership model is a well-established leadership model in the workforce. However, based on the fact that it seems to differentiate between the leader and the follower (i.e. there is more of a distinction of a legitimate, powerful leader than many of the other models), its philosophy may at times create dissonance with the university philosophy of equality.

Summary of Leadership Models

You have now been introduced to five major leadership models as well as the types of power that play a part in all of the models. As you play a greater leadership role in your university life, it is sometimes wise to base your judgements on these formal, researched models. Even if you don’t follow these ideas completely, you can often adapt certain elements from these models to make yourself a better leader. Ultimately, as you become a better leader, you will also improve your interpersonal relations with others – your interpersonal growth.