You are on page 1of 9







Leadership may be defining as the ability to influence a person or a group towards
the achievement of goals. In its simplest form, leadership involves-

 Identification of goals(vision)
 Selection of right path to the follow (statergy)and
 Enthusing or influencing followers to that path willingly(motivation)

Leadership is the ability of an individual to set an exm: for others and lead for the
front. it is an attitude that influence the enviorment around us. the extend of
harmonisation of head, hand, heart, determines the leaders effectiveness. when
physical ,mental, intellectual personalities get integrated, the joy of achieving the
excellence or perfection follows.

Why leadership is required?

 Direct group activities

 Ensure effective utilization of manpower
 Motivate all concerned
 Develop good human relation across the board
 Promote the spirit of co-ordination
 Fulfill social responsibility
 Influence the behavior of the member

Grate man theories of leadership

Grate man theories of leadership: assume that the capacity for leadership is
inherent that great leader are born and not made. according to this theories,
leadership cells for a certain qualities like charmpersuasiveness, intelligence,
courage,aggreciveness,action,orientation which are of such a nature that they
cannot be taught or learnt in formal sense for ex. Abraham Lincoln aleczhnder the
great and the host of others who have retained a place for themselves in history.

2. Behavioral theories
It believes leadership traits are not completely inborn. But also can be acquired
through learning and experience. This theories focuses on the action of the leader,
not on mental qualities or internal states. This theory believes that specific
behavior differentiates leaders from non-leader.
The question is what do effective leaders do that ineffective ones do not do?
Are effective leaders task-oriented or employee oriented, democratic or autocratic,
permissive or directive?

I. Concern for task. Here leaders emphasize the achievement of concrete

objectives. They look for high levels of productivity, and ways to organize
people and activities in order to meet those objectives.

II. Concern for task. Here leaders emphasize the achievement of concrete
objectives. They look for high levels of productivity, and ways to organize
people and activities in order to meet those objectives ern for people. In this
style, leaders look upon their followers as people - their needs, interests,
problems, development and so on. They are not simply units of production
or means to an end.

III. Participative leadership. Here leaders try to share decision-making with

others.(Wright 1996: 36-7)

3: The managerial grid theories

Leader should have concern for the people and concern for the task. The question
is how much attention do they pay to one another? This question answered this is a
modal definition by Blake and mouton, in the early 1960s.

♦ Impoverished leadership- good for nothing boss

 Has little or low concern for people or task

 Main concern himself/herself
 Stages drama of putting hard work
 Keep to his her job and style’s out of trouble

♦ County club leadership- friendly boss

 Run’s a cozy club within the office

 Looks after people and value friendly relations more then the task.

♦ Middle of the rode leadership- compromising boss

 Compromising man/woman
 High esteem for rules and regulation
 Play safe – precedents
 Moderate concern for production and people.

♦ Team leadership

 Gains commitment and co-operation of the members of the team

 Inspires a win attitude
 Promote enthusiasm

4: Situational Leadership

 This approach sees leadership as specific to the situation in which it is being

 Exercised. For example, whilst some situations may require an autocratic style,
 Others may need a more participative approach. It also proposes that there may
be differences in required leadership styles at different levels in the same

5: Transformational leadership: why we need it?

Unfortunately though, as with most things that we value, transformational

leadership is in short supply in our country. We need much more of it, in
every sphere, be it government, business, education, the law, or even non-
profit organizations. Our slow and halting progress seems even more
conspicuous when we look at the rapid growth many less-endowed countries
have achieved over the past two-three decades. Take a look at just one
indicator — the Human Development Index ranks India at 124, out of 173
countries, behind countries such as Gabon, Nicaragua and Mongolia. Given
the talent and resources we possess, obviously, things need not be this way.

Considering the gap that we have to bridge, and the extent of our
underperformance, I believe that an incremental approach will just not do.
Our approach has to be deliberate and urgent. That's true for India, as a
country. Either we make the leap, or we risk being marginalized. We cannot
wait ten years for things to fall in place. Because planning to cross an abyss
in two leaps is a recipe for disaster. Hence, the relevance of transformational
leadership in our context.

Rather than talk about transformational leadership in merely abstract terms, I

thought I would share with you the examples of two outstanding figures of
our times, both of whom, I find fascinating and who strike me as being truly
transformational leaders, though in vastly different settings.

What is Transformational Leadership?

Transformational leadership is about implementing new ideas. These individuals
continually change themselves; they stay flexible and adaptable; and continually
improve those around them. The transformational leader
encourages followers by acting as a role model, motivating through inspiration,
stimulating intellectually, and giving individualized consideration for needs and

Why Transformational Leadership?

Transformational leadership empowers people to greatly exceed their previous
levels of accomplishment. This dynamic and innovative leadership style
challenges and motivates an entire organization – top to bottom. They put passion
and energy into everything. They care about people and want people to succeed.
The result is individual, group, and organizational achievement beyond

6: Path-Goal Leadership Theory

Path- Goal theory gets its name from the assumption that effective leaders can
increase subordinate motivation by:

a) Explaining the subordinate’s perception of work goals.

b) Providing rewards for goal attainment.

c) Clarifying how goals & desired rewards can be achieved.

Path-goal theory stress that motivation is essential to effective

leadership. According to R. J. House & T. R. Mitchell leaders can enhance
motivation by “increasing the number & kinds of personal payoff to subordinates
for work-goal attainment & making paths to these payoffs easier to travel by
clarifying paths, reducing road blocks & pay falls & increasing the opportunities
for personal satisfaction en route.”

A Leadership Theory proposed by the American psychologist Robert House. The

Path-Goal Theory contends that the leader must motivate subordinates by: (1)
emphasizing the relationship between the subordinates' own needs and the
organizational goals; (2) clarifying and facilitating the path subordinates must take
to fulfill their own needs as well as the organization's needs. House's theory also
attempts to predict the effect that structuring behavior will have under different

Based on assumptions from Vroom's Expectancy Theory, this model explains how
behavior of the leader causes expectancies/motivations in the subordinate that
create effort and satisfaction. The rationale is that followers will perform better if
they think they are capable, and if they perceive the work will get results and be
worth the effort.
In choosing which of the leadership behaviors to use, two variables influence the
choice: the subordinate's characteristics, and the characteristics of the task. The
leader behavior is contingent on these characteristics, making this a situational
leadership theory. No one leadership behavior works for motivating every person
and the leader supplies what is missing to motivate the follower. After this initial
assessment of the follower and the task, the leader then helps the follower define
goals and then reach them in the most efficient way. Leaders may even adapt their
styles with an individual during the completion of a task, if one part of the job
needs a different motivation from another.

Although it is a complex and sometimes confusing theory, it reminds leaders to

continually think of their central purposes as a leader: to help define goals, clarifies
paths to get there, remove obstacles that may exist, and provide support and
encouragement for achievement of goals. Most of the responsibility is on the leader
however, and there is little emphasis identified for the follower. Some argue this
kind of leadership may be counterproductive over time, resulting in learned

According to House, there are four types of leadership styles depending on the

Four Styles of Leading Subordinates

1. Directive Leadership. The leader gives specific guidance of performance to
2. Supportive Leadership. The leader is friendly and shows concern for the
3. Participative Leadership. The leader consults with subordinates and
considers their suggestions.
4. Achievement-oriented Leadership. The leader sets high goals and expects
subordinates to have high-level performance.
Leadership Styles
Leadership style is the manner and approach of providing direction,
implementing plans, and motivating people. Kurt Lewis (1939) led a group of
researchers to identify different styles of leadership. This early study has been very
influential and established three major leadership styles. The three major styles of
leadership are (U.S. Army Handbook, 1973):
 Authoritarian or autocratic
 Participative or democratic
 Declarative or Free Reign
Although good leaders use all three styles, with one of them normally dominant,
bad leaders tend to stick with one style.
Authoritarian (autocratic)
This style is used when leaders tell their employees what they want done and
how they want it accomplished, without getting the advice of their followers. Some
of the appropriate conditions to use it are when you have all the information to
solve the problem, you are short on time, and your employees are well motivated.
Some people tend to think of this style as a vehicle for yelling, using
demeaning language, and leading by threats and abusing their power. This is not
the authoritarian style, rather it is an abusive, unprofessional style called “bossing
people around.” It has no place in a leader's repertoire.
The authoritarian style should normally only be used on rare occasions. If
you have the time and want to gain more commitment and motivation from your
employees, then you should use the participative style.
Participative (democratic):
This style involves the leader including one or more employees in the decision
making process (determining what to do and how to do it). However, the leader
maintains the final decision making authority. Using this style is not a sign of
weakness; rather it is a sign of strength that your employees will respect.
This is normally used when you have part of the information, and your
employees have other parts. Note that a leader is not expected to know everything
— this is why you employ knowledgeable and skillful employees. Using this style
is of mutual benefit — it allows them to become part of the team and allows you to
make better decisions.

Delegative (free reign, Laises Fairs)

In this style, the leader allows the employees to make the decisions.
However, the leader is still responsible for the decisions that are made. This is used
when employees are able to analyze the situation and determine what needs to be
done and how to do it. You cannot do everything! You must set priorities and
delegate certain tasks.
This is not a style to use so that you can blame others when things go wrong,
rather this is a style to be used when you fully trust and confidence in the people
below you. Do not be afraid to use it, however, use it wisely!