Introduction conclude, assumptions would be drawn from

Introduction

This
essay will be analysing the development of management and leadership theories
over the last hundred years. Using various pieces of literature (Buchanan and
Huczynski, 2017; Liborius, 2017; French et al., 2015; Conger, 1999), the
transformational leadership theory will be further explored in-depth. A
critical reflection on the literatures reviewed would also be analysed and
applied in practise. Furthermore, personal reflections on the overall module in
regards to management and leadership, action plans in employing the knowledge
derived from the research conducted as well as key success indicators would be
identified. To conclude, assumptions would be drawn from the analysed research.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

What
is Management

As
stated by French et al. (2015, p. 289), management can be defined as a process
which is ‘… more concerned with promoting stability and enabling the
organisation to run smoothly’ that also ‘… involves planning, organizing, leading
and controlling the use of organizational resources’. Various works of
literature have also been recognised to support this viewpoint on defining
management, with the inclusion of achieving organisational goals (Solomon,
Costea and Nita, 2016; Mintzberg, 2009; Kotter, 2006; Perloff, 2004; Zimmerman,
2001; Maccoby, 2000; Zaleznik, 1977). However, other studies further define
managers as individuals whose authority is derived simply from position and power
(Daft, 2003; Capowski, 1994).

What
is Leadership

Study
shows that there are no collectively agreed definition for leadership (Goethals
et al., 2004). This is due to the distinct behaviours leaders demonstrate in
engaging and influencing their followers (Fiedler, 1969). However, according to
Buchanan and Huczynski (2017, p. 598), leadership is ‘the process of
influencing the activities of an organised group in its effort toward goal
setting and goal achievement’. In line with this definition, a prominent early
observer, Ralph Stogdill (1950), defined leadership as an interpersonal process
of influencing, a social context of followership and a goal achievement driver.
Maccoby (2000) further distinguishes leaders as agents of change. Nevertheless,
it has been argued that networked and virtual organisational forms, knowledge
work, self-managing teams and flat structures, due to symbolism and hierarchy
have been recognised to cause a decline in the effectiveness of traditional
leadership (Buchanan and Huczynski, 2017).

Formal
and informal leadership can be identified as two forms of leadership (Buchanan
and Huczynski, 2017). An official authority given by an organisation to execute
power to influence the achievement of goals is a formal leadership, while the
exercising of resources and exceptional skills in influencing goals achievement
is an informal leadership (Buchanan and Huczynski, 2017). Hence, bringing the proposed
definitions of management and informal leadership side by side (French et al.,
2015; Buchanan and Huczynski, 2017).

Leadership
vs Management

Management
and leadership are often used interchangeably (Toor and Ofori, 2008). While some
literatures have stated that leadership is merely a feature of a management role
(Mintzberg, 2009), others claim there is a distinction between management and
leadership (French et al., 2015; Perloff, 2004; Daft, 2003; Robbins, 2002;
Zimmerman, 2001; Maccoby, 2000; Kumle and Kelly, 1999; Zaleznik, 1997;
Capowski, 1994; Kotter, 1990, 2006; Bennis, 1989; Bennis and Nanus, 1985).

Buchanan
and Huczynski (2017) states that management and leadership can be separated
conceptually, yet, questioning its application in practise. According to Toor
and Ofori (2008), managers have been recognised to perform leadership roles and
vice-versa. However, Mawson (2001) still argues that more often the case, in
practise, things don’t work out that way. Although having philosophical
differences, management and leadership both share the mutual purpose of goal
attainment (Zimmerman, 2001). It is also believed that whilst leadership might
be essential, it may not be sufficient for an effective management (Paus,
2008). Hence, if goals become the target, leadership versus/and management
becomes the process (Zimmerman, 2001).

Development
of Management and Leadership Theories

Over
the past 100 years, a vast majority of academics have demonstrated an interest on
the theoretical approaches to leadership (Yukl, 2010). This has led to the development
of theories such as the great man, trait, behavioural, contingency,
transactional, transformational and authentic leadership approach (French et
al., 2015).

As
stated by Buchanan and Huczynski (2017), the great man theory identifies
leaders as being ‘born’, emerging to power irrespective of the historical,
organisational or social context. This belief can be recognised as the bases
with which the search for leadership qualities was developed (Buchanan and
Huczynski, 2017). However, the validity and reliability of the study is
weakened due to its sole focus on male political figures.

As
academics sought to identify the distinct behaviours of the ‘great person’, the
trait theory was developed (Bird, 1940; Stogdill, 1948, 1974; Kipnis and Lane,
1962; Shaw, 1976; Fraser, 1978; Paglis and Green, 2002). This identified
various personality traits attributed to successful leaders (Stogdill, 1974).
Yet, the lack of uniqueness and considerations of social and organisational factors
led to the inability to create a universal trait theory (French et al., 2015). Therefore,
critiques then prompted scholars to consider a behavioural approach of
leadership (Jenkins, 1947; Mann, 1959).

The
behavioural theory of leadership is analysed as ways leaders undertake tasks in
achieving an effective performance (Likert, 1961). Instead of focusing solely on
top leaders or figures, this theoretical approach studies leadership all
through the organisational hierarchy (French et al., 2015). However, scholars
have argued that the behavioural approach lacks integration (Bennis, 1959;
Avolio, 2007; Derue et al., 2011), a limitation also identified in the traits
approach. It can also be recognised to lack the consideration of major social
and dispositional influences as well as the failure to ascertain selected
behaviours to a definite performance in every situation or context (French et
al., 2015). Hence, the development of the contingency theory on leadership.

As oppose to other leadership theories which
focuses on traits and behaviours, the contingency theory places emphasis on
vital situational factors (Fiedler, 1967). Position power, task structure and
leader-member relationship are broadly recognised as the situational factors
influencing leadership styles and effectiveness (Fishbein, Landy and Hatch,
1969; Fiedler, 1972; Hersey and Blanchard, 1988). Nevertheless, according to
Buchanan and Huczynski (2017), this theory has been critiqued on its vagueness
as it is identified to lack the consideration of other important contextual
factors such as external economic issues, working conditions, levels of stress
and degree of change, organisational structure, design and technology. This
could be due to the fact that Fiedler’s (1967) theory was developed from
studies carried out on bomber crews and basketball teams (Buchanan and
Huczynski, 2017), thus, missing the vital factors provided in an organisational
context.

The transformational and transactional
leadership theory can be considered as a more recent approach to leadership (Bass,
1985b; Bass and Riggio, 2006; French et al., 2015). The movement of attention
towards these approach was influenced by Burns (1978) study on differentiating
political leaders as a transactional or transformational leader. Often times, these
approaches have been analysed as two opposite ends of a spectrum (Afsar et al.,
2016). While transformational leaders are known to have individualised consideration,
intellectual stimulation, inspiration and charisma which influences a beyond
expectation or contract performance (Bass, 1985a; Bass and Avolio, 1990, 1994),
transactional leaders are believed to build their leader-follower relationship
on an agreed performance established on contingent rewards, bargains and punishments
(Bass, 1985b; French et al., 2015; Buchanan and Huczynski, 2017). Just as the ‘great
person’ and traits theory, the transformational and transactional theory overlooks
the influence of situational and environmental business factors on effective
leadership (Hollenbeck, McCall Jnr and Silzer, 2006; Boal, 2007). Furthermore, relative
to the behavioural theory of leadership, these approaches also lack integration
and proof that all relevant leadership behaviours are identified (Yukl, 2009).
Due to the gaps recognised in these philosophies, recent scholars have analysed
authentic leadership as a present concept for further study (Gardner et al.,
2005; Gardner et al., 2011).

Although
not collectively agreed upon, the term authentic leadership has been defined by
various scholars (Rome and Rome, 1967; Henderson and Hoy, 1983; Bhindi and
Duignan, 1997; Begley, 2001, 2004; George, 2003; Luthans and Avolio, 2003;
Avolio et al., 2004; Avolio, Luthans and Walumba, 2004; Ilies, Morgeson and
Nahrgang, 2005; Shamir and Eilam, 2005; George and Sims, 2007; Walumbwa et al.,
2008; Whitehead, 2009). In general, authentic leadership is viewed by these academics
as the:

“acceptance of personal and organizational responsibility
for actions, outcomes and mistakes; the non-manipulation of subordinates; and the
salience of the self over role requirements.” (Gardner et al., 2011, p. 1123).

However,
the concept of this theory has been criticised as leaders have been studied to disagree
on what constitutes equality as well as the demand for fairness and honesty (Price,
2003). It has also been recognised to ignore the political and practical facet
of organisational leadership in addition to the probability of a false or
negative self-narrative (Berkovich, 2012).

In
the next section of this essay, the transformational approach will be explored
in-depth as an emerging leadership theory.

Transformational
Leadership Theory

As
stated by Tichy and Devanna (1986), the main roles of a transformational leader
are institutionalising change, creating visions and recognising the need for
revitalization. 

x

Hi!
I'm Johnny!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out