AIM

INTRODUCTION

What is Leadership?

Leadership, in simple terms, refers to the process and action undertaken by an individual in order to
direct a team towards certain goals, while at the same time maintaining the team itself. Lindeman
(2011) defines a leader as ‘an individual whose rationalizations, judgement and feeling are 21
accepted by group as bases of belief and action’; while Robbins and Judge (2013) emphasize
leadership as the as the ability to influence a group toward the achievement of a vision or set of goals.

In groups, leadership leadership is believed to fulfil two primary goals – one, to complete group tasks
and two, to fulfil group members' needs (Cartwright & Zander, 1953).

14 important functions performed by leaders across settings have been given by Krech and Crutchfield
(1962), and are as follows –

 Goal Setter: A leader either establishes organizational goals and objectives himself or he may
participate with his superiors or subordinates in establishing them.
 Planner: This function is intermediate between the determination of goals and their execution. In
this connection, the leader makes decisions concerning the ways and means with which the
organizational goals can be achieved.
 Executive: In his role as executive, a leader is responsible for seeing that the appropriate activities
of the organization are carried out.
 Expert: The technical information and skills the supervisors possess are useful in aiding and
instructing their subordinates in effective work procedure.
 External group representative: He acts as a representative of an organization to deal with
outside individuals and groups.
 Surrogate for individual responsibility: The leader relieves other members of the group of
certain responsibilities and they in turn place their trust in his decisions.
 Controller of internal relationship within the organization: It is the responsibility of a leader
to see the various departments in his purview to coordinate their activities.
 Administrator of rewards and punishments: As leaders, the supervisors encourage, upgrade
and promote workers who deserve, and remove, transfer or dismiss workers who violate rules or
regulations of the organization.
 Arbitrator and Mediator: The leader tries to maintain harmony among the members of the
organization. For example, the president of an organisation makes efforts to maintain harmony
among competitive and ambitious vice-presidents.
 Exemplar: Leader serves as an exemplar, a model for others to emulate. For example, the office
manager who is invariably 15 minutes early at his desk in the morning is seeking to influence the
members of his group by being a good example.
 Symbol of the group: In this role, the leader provides a kind of continuity and stability to the
group, standing for it despite changes in circumstances and membership.
 Ideologist: The leader functions as an ideologist. By presenting his ideas concerning the group, he
is a source of moral strength to them.
 Father Figure: The leader, by functioning as a father figure, fulfils an emotional role for the
members of the group. By identifying themselves with their leader, the members of a group draw
strength and feeling of security.
 Scapegoat: The leader functions as a scapegoat. He provides a ready target for the aggressions of
the members of the group. Failure can be projected upon him. For example, the foreman in a
production section may be blamed for any shortfall in production in his department and for
insufficient co-operation on the part of the departmental manage.

These functions are in turn divided into primary functions, which includes executive, planner, policy
maker, expert, external group, representative, controller of internal relations, surveyors of rewards and
punishments, arbitrator and mediator, and accessory functions which are the functions assumed by the
leader or assigned to them by the virtue of their position, which include exemplar, external symbol of
the group, substitute for individual responsibility, ideologist, father figure and scapegoat

Followership – Hollander’s Analysis

Hollander (1969) brought forth the concept of inclusive leadership which aimed to highlight the role
of followers as a key to effective leadership. As such, leadership is seen as an interpersonal process
that entails mutual relationships with shared goals and a common vision.

This leadership-followership model is often described interns of a social exchange which is

established and maintained if the benefits to both the leader and the followers outweigh the costs
(Homans, 1958). This exchange is considered to be fair if the leader provides followers with things
they value such as a sense of direction, values, and recognition and in turn receives other things such
as esteem and responsiveness. Followers expect that the leader will enable them to achieve an
outcome favourable to them and believe that equity in distributing rewards makes the exchange fair.
This social exchange begins when the leader and the followers perceive each other as being
potentially instrumental to the fulfilment of each other’s needs, for example, the completion of a task.
If necessary, the leader clarifies what the followers must do to complete the transaction. If, on the one
hand, the leader fails, he/she is perceived to be unjust or self-serving, while on the other hand, if the
followers fail to comply, the leader might be forced to take corrective action.

Hence, as can be seen, there is a psychological contract between the leaders and the followers which
depends upon a variety of expectations and actions from both sides. The followers’ receipt of a reward
or avoidance of punishment is contingent upon their successful compliance and completion of the task
and the satisfaction of the leader’s needs accrues from the followers’ success. Thus, it can be
understood that the characteristics of effective leaders are seen as very much the same as those of
committed followers.

Theories of Leadership

The following are the prominent theories of leadership –

 Trait Theories –

These distinguish between leaders and non-leaders by identifying certain characteristics inherent in
their personality. This conceptualization holds that leadership stems from dispositional attributes, and
has been supported by a vast body of research on the Big Five Personality factors. A comprehensive
review of literature has found extraversion to be the most important trait of effective leaders.
Conscientiousness and openness to experience also showed strong relationships to leadership, after
extraversion.

Another trait that has been implicated in effective leadership is emotional intelligence (EI). Advocates
of EI argue that without it, a person can have outstanding training, a highly analytical mind, a
compelling vision, and an endless supply of innovative ideas but still not make a great leader. This
may be especially true as individuals move up in an organisation. This is because a core component of
EI is empathy. Empathetic leaders can sense others’ needs, listen to what followers say, and read the
reactions of others. A leader who effectively displays and manages emotions would find it easier to
influence the feelings of followers, by both expressing genuine sympathy and enthusiasm for good
performance and by using irritation for those who fail to perform.

The major issues with trait theories has been that traits in themselves are elusive and difficulty to
measure, and they are considerably influenced by situational factors. Additionally, it is difficult to see
how traits influence subordinate motivation and group performance unless the behaviour in which
they are manifested are studied. In 1974, Stogdill addressed the limitation of trait theories by
suggesting that while a person does not necessarily become a leader just because he/she has certain
traits, when a person has traits that are relevant to the demands of the leadership situation, specific
challenges and the hopes, concerns and abilities of followers - then the relation between traits and
leadership behaviour becomes readily apparent. Good leaders are thus people who have the
appropriate or sufficient combination of traits relative to the situation in which they must be
expressed. He identified 27 traits as critical to leaders of which persistence, adaptability, being alert to
the social environment, creativity, diplomacy and tolerance for stress comprise of a few.

 Behavioural Theories

In contrast to trait theories, behavioural theories of leadership assume that it is the behaviour of
leaders that sets them apart.

The Iowa Leadership studies conducted bt Lewin, Lippit and White in the 1930s were one of the first
scientific attempts to investigate whether different leadership styles produced different reactions from
the same or similar groups. The participants were 10 year old boys who were randomly assigned to
three groups having different leadership styles – authoritarian, democratic and laissez-faire. The
experiments were designed primarily to examine patterns of aggressive behaviour and thus, the effects
that styles of leadership had on productivity were not directly examined. However, an important by-
product was the insight that was gained into the productive behaviour of a group. The researchers
found that the boys subjected to the autocratic leaders reacted in one of two ways: either aggressively
or apathetically. Both the aggressive and apathetic behaviours were deemed to be reactions to the
frustration caused by the autocratic leader. The laissez-faire leadership climate actually produced the
greatest number of aggressive acts from the group, while the democratically led group fell between the
extremely aggressive group and apathetic groups under the autocratic leaders.

The Ohio State Leadership Studies were undertaken at the end of World War II by the Bureau of
Business Research at Ohio State University. An interdisciplinary team of researchers from
psychology, sociology, and economics developed and used the Leader Behaviour Description
Questionnaire (LBDQ) to analyse leadership in numerous types of groups and situations. The Ohio
State studies started with the premise that no satisfactory definition of leadership existed. They also
recognized that previous work had too often assumed that ‘leadership’ was synonymous with ‘good
leadership’. They administered the LBDQ to a wide variety of situation and subjected the responses to
factor analysis. It was found that two dimensions were constantly emerging – consideration and
initiation structure. In simple terms, the Ohio State factors are task or goal orientation (initiating
structure) and recognition of individual needs and relationships (consideration). Both these
dimensions reflect how leaders carry out their leadership functions. The Ohio state studies most
importantly suggested that leadership behaviour is the result of both task features and human relations
and thus took a two dimensional approach that ultimately became multi-dimensional as research
progressed

The Michigan Leadership Studies examined examined 12 high-low productivity pairs of groups. Each
pair represented a high-producing section and a low-producing section, with other variables such as
type of work, conditions, and methods being the same in each pair. Nondirective interviews were
conducted with the 24 section supervisors and 419 clerical workers. Results showed that supervisors
of high-producing sections were significantly more likely to be general rather than close in their
supervisory styles and be employee-centered (have a genuine concern for their people). The low-
producing-section supervisors had essentially opposite characteristics and techniques. They were
found to be close, production-centered supervisors. Another important finding was that employee
satisfaction was not directly related to productivity, the type of supervision was the key to their
performance. The general, employee-centered supervisor, described here, became the standard-bearer
for the traditional human relations or democratic approach to leadership.

Blake and Mouton’s Managerial Grid was developed in the 1960s, and attempts to quantify the
degree to which the focus is on tasks or concern for production/results, and the focus is on the
relationship with the subordinate or concern for people. The grid postulates that there are 5 leadership
styles :

1) Impoverished Management - Emphasizes a situation in which there is both low concern for results
and low concern about people. The apathetic nature of this leader results in behaviour that is
withdrawn from subordinates and indifferent to success.
2) Country Club Management - This combination of low concern for results with high concern for
people results in a leader who is more interested in pleasing people than in the performance of
tasks. This leader attempts to create an environment that is friendly and welcoming.
3) Authority-Compliance Management - This represents a high concern for results but a low concern
for people. This controlling leadership style is characterized by dictating instructions to
subordinates in a way that does not show concern or compassion.
4) Middle of the Road Management - This style of compromise is evident in leaders who balance
concern for results with satisfying relationships. The group is functioning; however, there is
potential for greater success.
5) Team Management - Great emphasis is placed on production and on people. This optimal balance
of developing human relationships and effective results attainment provides for the most satisfying
work environment.

 Contingency Theories of Leadership

These theories emphasize the situational or contextual aspects of leadership. Some theories are as
follows –
Filder’s Contingency Model of Leadership Effectiveness looks at the relationship between leadership
style and the favourableness of the situation. Situational favourableness was described by Fiedler in
terms of three empirically derived dimensions ranked in order of importance :

 The leader-member relationship

 The degree of task structure
 The leader’s position power

Situations, in light of this model, are considered favourable to the leader if all three of these
dimensions are high. If the three dimensions are low, the situation is considered unfavourable for the
leader. Fiedler concluded through his research that the favourableness of the situation in combination
with the leadership style determines effectiveness. Fiedler was able to discover that under very
favourable and very unfavourable situations, the task-directed, or hard-nosed and authoritarian, type
of leader was most effective. However, when the situation was only moderately favourable or
unfavourable (the intermediate range of favourableness), the human-oriented or democratic type of
leader was most effective.

Despite valid criticism of the model, it has made several important contributions, including being the
first to give importance to situational context, the interaction between the situation and the leader’s
characteristics in determining leader effectiveness, and sparking research that has lead to
improvements and alternative contingency theories.

The Path-Goal Theory given by Evans and House is derived from the expectancy framework of
motivation theory, and attempts to explain the impact that leader behaviour has on associate
motivation, satisfaction, and performance. House propounded four major types, or styles, of
leadership. These are:

 Directive leadership - This style is similar to that of the Lippitt and White authoritarian leader.
Associates know exactly what is expected of them, and the leader gives specific directions. There
is no participation by subordinates.
 Supportive leadership - The leader is friendly and approachable and shows a genuine concern for
associates.
 Participative leadership - The leader asks for and uses suggestions from associates but still makes
the decisions.
 Achievement-oriented leadership - The leader sets challenging goals for associates and shows
confidence that they will attain these goals and perform well.

This path-goal theory suggests that these various styles can be and actually are used by the same
leader in different situations. Two of the situational factors that have been identified are the personal
characteristics of associates and the environmental pressures and demands facing associates. With
respect to the first situational factor, the theory asserts: Leader behaviour will be acceptable to
subordinates to the extent that the subordinates see such behaviour as either an immediate source of
satisfaction or as instrumental to future satisfaction. And with respect to the second situational factor,
the theory states: Leader behaviour will be motivational (e.g., will increase subordinate effort) to the
extent that – one, it makes satisfaction of subordinate needs contingent on effective performance, and
two, it complements the environment of subordinates by providing the coaching, guidance, support,
and rewards which are necessary for effective performance and which may otherwise be lacking in
subordinates or in their environment.
The Situational Leadership Theory or the Hersey-Blanchard Situational Leadership Theory holds that
leadership depends upon each individual situation, and no single leadership style can be considered
the best. For Hershey and Blanchard, tasks are different and each type of task requires a different
leadership style. A good leader will be able to adapt her or his leadership to the goals or objectives to
be accomplished. Goal setting, capacity to assume responsibility, education, and experience are main
factors that make a leader successful. Not only is the leadership style important for a successful
leader-led situation but the ability or maturity of those being led is a critical factor, as well. Leadership
techniques fall out of the leader pairing her or his leadership style to the maturity level of the group.

The Hersey-Blanchard Situational Leadership Theory has two pillars: leadership style and the
maturity level of those being led. To Hersey and Blanchard, there leadership styles stem from four
basic behaviours : telling, selling, participating, delegating.

The leadership style, itself, manifests itself as behavior related to the task and behavior as to
relationship with the group. "Telling" behavior simply is a unidirectional flow of information from the
leader to the group. In the "selling" behavior, the leader attempts to convince the group of that the
leader should lead by providing social and emotional support to the individual being convinced. There
is two-way communication, but it is clear that the leader is leading. With "participating" behavior, the
leader shares decision making with the group, making the system more democratic. There is less of an
emphasis on accomplishing an objective than building human relations. The fourth type of behavior in
leadership style, "delegating" is reflected by parceling out tasks to group members. The leader still is
in charge but there is more of an emphasis on monitoring the ones delegated with the tasks.

Four maturity levels of the group are posited by Hersey and Blanchard :

 Basic incompetence or unwillingness in doing the task

 Inability to do the task but willing to do so
 Competent to do the task but do not think they can
 The group is ready, willing, and able to do the task.

Each type of task may involve a different maturity level.

According to Hersey, ability level and willingness to do work can be cultivated by a good leader by
raising the level of expectations. Blanchard overlays four permutations of competency-commitment :

 Low competence and low commitment

 Low competence and high commitment
 High competence and low/variable commitment
 High competence and high commitment

Contemporary Theories of Leadership

These more recent theories vary widely on the factors they emphasize. Some are as follows –

The Charismatic Leadership Theory holds the old notion of a leader being one who ‘by the force of
their personal abilities are capable of having profound and extraordinary effects on followers’.
Attributed to House, the theory suggests that charismatic leaders are characterized by self-confidence
and confidence in their associates, high expectations for associates, ideological vision, and the use of
personal example. Followers of charismatic leaders identify with the leader and the mission of the
leader, exhibit extreme loyalty to and confidence in the leader, emulate the leader’s values and
behavior, and derive self-esteem from their relationship with the leader. Bass has extended the profile
of charismatic leaders to include superior debating and persuasive skills as well as technical expertise
and the fostering of attitudinal, behavioral, and emotional changes in their followers.

Because of the effects that charismatic leaders have on followers, the theory predicts that charismatic
leaders will produce in followers performance beyond expectations as well as strong commitment to
the leader and his or her mission. Research indicates that the impact of such charismatic leaders will
be enhanced when the followers exhibit higher levels of self-awareness and self-monitoring,
especially when observing the charismatic leaders’ behaviors and activities and when operating in a
social network. Leader traits that foster charismatic attributions include self-confidence, impression-
management skills, social sensitivity, and empathy. Situations that promote charismatic leadership
include a crisis requiring dramatic change or followers who are very dissatisfied with the status quo.

The Transformational Leadership Theory plays in contrast to the traditional transactional theories,
with the major difference between the two being with respect to how the followers are treated.
transformational leaders is that they seek to empower and elevate followers (i.e., develop followers
into leaders) while charismatic leaders may try to keep followers weak and dependent on them (i.e.,
instill personal loyalty to the leader rather than developing them to attain ideals). In contrast to
transactional leaders, transformational leaders characterized by idealized leadership, inspiring
leadership, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration represent a cluster of interrelated
styles aimed at the following:

 Changing situations for the better

 Developing followers into leaders
 Overhauling organizations to provide them with new strategic directions
 Inspiring people by providing an energizing vision and high ideal for moral and ethical conduct

On the basis of his research findings, Bass concludes that in many instances (such as relying on
passive management by exception), transactional leadership is a prescription for mediocrity and that
transformational leadership leads to superior performance in organizations facing demands for
renewal and change. He suggests that fostering transformational leadership through policies of
recruitment, selection, promotion, training, and development will pay off in the health, well-being,
and effective performance of today’s organizations.

Transformational leaders share the following characteristics:

 They identify themselves as change agents.
 They are courageous.
 They believe in people.
 They are value driven.
 They are lifelong learners.
 They have the ability to deal with complexity, ambiguity, and uncertainty.
 They are visionaries

Because of dissatisfaction with the progress of leadership theory and research in explaining and
predicting the effects of leader behavior on performance outcomes, some of the basic assumptions
about the importance of leadership have been challenged over the years. One alternative approach that
received attention proposed that there may be certain substitutes for leadership that make leader
behavior unnecessary and redundant, and neutralizers that prevent the leader from behaving in a
certain way or that counteract the behavior. These substitutes or neutralizers can be found in
subordinate, task, and organization characteristics. Employee experience, ability, and training may
substitute for instrumental/ task leadership. For example, professionals such as accountants or
software engineers may have so much experience, ability, and training that they do not need
instrumental/task leadership to perform well and be satisfied. Those employees who don’t particularly
care about organizational will neutralize both supportive/relationship and instrumental/task leadership
attempts. Tasks that are highly structured and automatically provide feedback substitute for
instrumental/ task leadership, and those that are intrinsically satisfying do not need
supportive/relationship leadership. There are also a number of organizational characteristics that
substitute for or neutralize leadership.

There has been further analysis of the leader substitutes concept, and Kerr and Jermier have provided
some empirical support from field studies of police officers. They found that substitutes such as
feedback from the task being performed had more impact on certain job-related activities than leader
behaviors did. The substitutes theory tries to point out that some things are beyond leaders’ control;
leaders do not have mystical powers over people. The situation or context plays a role. By the same
token, recent research testing the substitutes for leadership theory was generally not supportive and
demonstrated that leadership does matter. In other words, the substitutes idea does not negate
leadership; but it may put a more realistic boundary on what leadership is capable of achieving from
followers. Some styles, behaviors, activities, and skills of leadership are more effective than others.

The Implicit Leadership Theory is a cognitive theory developed by Robert Lord and colleagues, and is
based on the idea that individuals create cognitive representations of the world, and use these
preconceived notions to interpret their surroundings and control their behaviors. It suggests that group
members have implicit expectations and assumptions about the personal characteristics, traits, and
qualities that are inherent in a leader. These assumptions, termed implicit leadership theories or leader
prototypes, guide an individual's perceptions and responses to leaders. The term implicit is used
because they are not outwardly stated and the term theory is used because it involves the
generalization of past experiences to new experiences. Theses theories allow individuals to identify
leaders and aid them in responding appropriately to leaders in order to avoid conflict.

Although implicit leadership theories may vary between individuals, many overlap in terms of the task
skills and relationship skills that leaders should possess in order to be successful. In terms of task
skills, most people seek a leader that is in control, determined, influential, and continuously involved
in the group activities. When considering relationship skills, most people tend to prefer a leader who is
caring, honest, open to new ideas, and interested in the group work.

Leadership in the Indian Context

Despite the great diversity of the country, which often permeates into organizational contexts,
generalizing about the leadership practices of India becomes difficult. However, since India is
emerging as a global market and particularly in post liberalization era many international players have
entered the Indian market either as a joint venture with some Indian company or independently. In the
light of this from quite some time now, the corporate and researchers are trying to search a managerial
leadership style, which could be effective in the Indian context.

One such theory is the Nurturant Task Leadership Style, which is characterised by the leader’s
concern for task and nurturing orientation. The NTL Style is flexible and is therefore transitional in
the sense that it gradually leads to fuller participation of subordinates. Its emphasis on task orientation
grows out of the leader’s conviction that no meaningful interpersonal relationship on job can devolve
unless it develops out of the effective handling of the task system. The task system provides the focus
for superior-subordinate relationship while the socio-cultural system provides the appropriate ways of
handling the relationship.

Another theory is the Consultative Style of Managerial Leadership characterized by the managers
ability to make decisions by involving the subordinates in getting their suggestion/ideas with or
without any discussion on them and with the manager having the sole discretion of either accepting or
rejecting any idea with or without giving the sole discretion of either accepting or rejecting any idea
with or without giving any reason or logic thereof and thus making the final decision by himself and
by giving the subordinates a feeling of being heard. As per this definition, CSML fits in with the
average Indian’s psyche, which is dependency prone, feels comfortable in hierarchical structures,
looks for support/approval from superiors and even being heard by the boss gives him a feeling of
acceptance.