Leadership Theories Essay

Classical and military personnelist worry theories have had a major influence on modern theories of leadinghip. Making effective use of impound models and theories critically examine whether this is the case.In order to answer this question, it go away be appropriate to find at how classical and humanist theories emerged and outline some of their theories relating to forethought. Further discussion will be on the quality of forethought in comparison to that of leadinghip with concluding arguments on how far these theories have influenced modern leadership.The measure towards industrial development in the 19th century led to the emergence of classical management theories with some(prenominal) approaches. One such approach was how managers should act, manage projection and deal with day to day problems of managing the business (Mullins 2004). mannikin of theories on the above approach is command and control by Henri Fayol, bureaucratic arrangement by scoop shovel Weber and scientific management by F W Taylor.Fayol cited in Dilys Robinson (Training Journal, Jan 2005) favoured the nous of management organising task and managing mickle through and through a hierarchy remains. He saw senior level managers as having bureau not only by virtue of their position within the governing but besides on the increasing amount of decisions that managers had to make. Senior level managers cascaded orders through a command chain system to employees and had to the highest degree no interaction with workers.In addition Fayol taught that managers and workers had to abide by certain principles for the greater good of the organisation. For grammatical case managers had to treat workers with some degree of fairness whiles workers on the order hand were expect to accept and follow plans from ace leader, sub-ordinate their interest and not step beyond their responsibilities.In the same musical mode Max Weber in Derek Pugh & J Hickman (2007) like Fayol supported t he idea of a formalised organisation structure as it legitimised authority and helped to remove problems that authority based on tradition and charisma created. He was also concerned about the likelihood of managers using their authority to abuse workers within the hierarchy system hence hisidea that the relationship amongst the organisation and managers had to be impersonal in such a way that managerial roles are assigned and their authority based on competence.Additionally, Taylor in Dilys Robinson (Training Journal, Jan 2005) suggested that managers moldiness be responsible for organising work and the task given to selected and prepare workers to perform in accordance to the way managers deemed it. His idea seems to assert that there is one best way of performing task and that work task should be tailor do to fit those who have to perform them.Alternatively, humanist theorist which began to emerge on the mise en scene of classical management started to teach that workers were not only motivated by reward factors and that consideration of human needs was also a key in motivating workers. Humanist theories also began to look at the behaviour of employees within the organisation. Examples of humanist management theories are Douglas McGregors X and Y theory and Rensis Likerts management systems and styles.Douglas McGregor under theory X proposes that in certain situations managers must use their authority in order to get things done and strike desired results. Under theory Y, also based on certain assumptions he proposes that managers must be more democratic in their approach as this will motivate staff to contribute more to the organisation.Furthermore Rensis Likerts in Derek Pugh & J Hickman (2007) identified four change types of management styles bordering on the consumptive authoritative, benevolent authoritative, consultative and participative system. The first is characterised by imposed decisions and use of threats and the chip the use of rewa rds mainly to motivate staff. The third is were motivation is by rewards and some participation and the fourth seen as the best solution in that management have confidence in their workers, real responsibility is tangle by all, communication is abundant, team-work exists and where motivation is on stinting rewards based on agreed set goals between management and staff. McGraw Hill (1967) the human organisation,agrees that all organisation should adopt this. (http//www.accel-team.com/human_relations/hrels_04_likert.html) and in modern organisations the exploitative authoritative style of management is less than ideal as this usually results in staff olfactory property more de-motivated and demoralised. Staffs are also more likely to rebel and challenge management by lodge their grievances with internal or external arbitration systems that are in place today.From the above, it can be that whiles views generated by the classical theorist thinks managers can only lead effectively th rough a formalised structure, by rules and command, humanistic views provides an alternative as to how managers must lead, they must consider the needs of their workers, encourage participation to motivate and utilise the full potential of workers for the good of the organisation.To further develop this discussion, it would be useful to examine what management and leadership involves as arguments abound as to whether management and leadership are the same or not. However the difference between the two has been shown to be in what both does. Management as a circumstance is generic in meaning and is delimitate by Terry and Rue in Ernest Dale (1969) as a process or form of work that involves guidance and directing of a group of people toward organisational goals and objectives. It also covers many areas such as planning, organising, problem solving, controlling and putting appropriate structures in place. These are without delay seen as functions performed by individuals who have be en assigned formal roles as managers. leading in assembly line is defined by Richard L Daft, Patricia G lane (2007) as an influence relationship among leaders and followers who denominate real changes and outcomes that can reflect their share purpose. Mullins, L. J (2004) also defines leadership as getting people to follow or getting people to do things willingly. From this definition what stands out is that leaders must have followers whiles management use available resources such as people to get things done. gobbler Swanick & Judy Mckimm in ABC of Clinical Leadership supports this by citing management as involving the directing of people and resources to achieve organisational values and strategicdirection established and propagated by leadership.One example of what distinguishes leadership and management is when it comes to authority, leaders do not derive authority from a hierarchy system as managers do. An example of this is a case study in John Adair (2007) which was cond ucted at the laboratory of a molecular biology. The study form out that it was an environment which assigned offices did not exist and all workers regardless of position integrated with one other. It allowed ideas to flourish and be shared which lead to great works being produced by the laboratory.Mullins (2007) mentions also that in the performance of work task under the 7 Ss within the organisational frame work, leaders often make use of what is called the soft Ss, style, staff skills and shared goals whiles managers use the hard Ss which is structure, system and strategy. Zaleznik (1977) cited in Brooks (2005) lends his support and suggests that managers during conflict situations usually focus on achieving via media to maintain order and do so in an unemotional and lay back manner which does not result in change.For example the parties involved in a conflict may resolve their differences through compromise but does it guarantee that such a conflict will not arise again. Benni s and dwarf (1985) cited in ABC of clinical leadership give additional weight to the above and quotes Managers are people that do things right but leaders are people that do the right thing.Leadership is also associated with being visionary. Gower (2010) for example cites leadership as being an activity that is visionary, creative, inspirational, energising and transformational. Managers in contrast are seen as being less so. This may stem from the way management developed and trained from the past. Managers are usually assigned to be heads of departments within the organisation and as such tend to look at how they can meet targets within their departments rather than thinking about what direction the whole organisation is heading or needs to head in todays ever complex and changing environment. In light of these differences, management is still seen as being intertwined with leadership as the former has to illustration leadership in the performance of their duties. For example Bol man & Deal (1997) see both as necessary for advantage as organisations that are over managed with little leadership involvement or vice versa results in failure.In conclusion it can be said that classical and humanistic theories have had a great opposition on modern leadership in various ways. One of these is that it has changed the way leadership is viewed worldwide. Calls have been made for leadership to be exemplary and moral. A recent example was the leader of Italy, Mr Berlusconi who faced a grass of criticisms on certain aspects of his behaviour whiles in office and as a result was forced to desert from his position.Increase in communication between organisations and with external bodies has been another. Leaders are seen as the face of the organisation and to promote its success, leaders go to great strengths to forge good relations with the communities within which they operate.Finally another impact on modern leadership has been the increase in innovative ideas and tech nology which has resulted in economic growth. An example of a leader who has shown innovation and vision is Mark Elliot Zuckerbery, owner of Facebook, who transformed the idea of creating a college social website into a global enterprise.ReferencesBrooks Ian (2005), Organisational behaviour individuals, groups and organisation, 3rd ed, Pearson Education online Available at www.dawsonera.comBuechlar rooster Martin David Knaebel Hans Peter Buechlar Markus W, Leadership characteristic and business management in modern academic surgery, Langenberks Archives of Surgery, heap 391, Issue 2, Pages149-156. online Available on ISI web of knowledge, Accessed12/12/2011Derek S Pugh & David J Hickson, (2007), Great writers on organisations, 3rd omnibus ed, Ash gate Publishing Ltd, online Available on www.dawsonera.comDilys Robinson, http//www.trainingjournal.com/feature/2005-01-01-management-theorists-thinkers-for-the-21st-century/ Accessed 15/12/11Ernest Dale (1969), Management Theory and Prac tice, Copyright 1993, Carlos C. Lorenzana & Rex Book store online Google Books, Accessed 18/12/2011Gower handbook of leadership and management development, GB Gower (2010), Edited by Jeff Gold, Richard Thorpe, Alan Mumford online Available on www.dawsonera.comhttp//www.accel-team.com/human_relations/hrels_04_likert.html)John Adair (2007), leadership for innovation, kogan Page Ltd online Available at www.dawsonera.com, Accessed 21/12/11Mullin, L. J (2004), Management and Organisational behaviour, 7th ed., Pearson EducationMullin, L. J (2007), Management and Organisational behaviour, eighth ed., Harlow Financial Times Prentice HallRichard L Draft, Patricia G Lane (2007), The leadership experience, online Available on Google books, Accessed 21/12/11Tom Swanick & Judy Mckimm, ABC of Clinical leadership 1st edition, (2010) Bmj Books, online Available on www.dawsonera.com, Accessed 12/12/2012BibliographyJohn P kotter, What Leaders really do, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, Availabl e online www.HBSPress.org , Accessed 20/12/11.