Leadership In the field of Social Work: Theories

Introduction
Historical views
Early western history
Rise of alternative theories
Reemergence of trait theory
Attribute pattern approach
Behavioral and style theories
Situational and contingency theories
Functional theory
Integrated psychological theory
Transactional and transformational theories
Leader–member exchange theory
Emotions
Neo-emergent theory
Constructivist analysis

Introduction

Leadership encompasses an individual's, group's, or organization's ability to "lead," influence, or guide other individuals, teams, or entire organisations, both as a research topic and as a practical skill. The term "leadership" is frequently viewed as a contentious one. Specialist literature debates various points of view on the concept, sometimes contrasting Eastern and Western approaches to leadership, as well as North American and European approaches (within the West).

Leadership is defined as "a process of social influence in which a person can enlist the aid and support of others in the accomplishment of a common and ethical task" in US academic environments. Essentially, leadership is a powerful power relationship in which the power of one party (the "leader") encourages others to move or change (the "followers"). Some have questioned more traditional managerial views of leadership (which portray leadership as something possessed or owned by one individual due to their role or authority) and advocated instead for the complex nature of leadership, which can be found at all levels of institutions, both in formal and informal roles.

Traits, situational interaction, function, behaviour, power, vision and values, charisma, and intelligence, among other things, have all been studied in relation to leadership.

Historical views

In terms of political leadership, the Chinese doctrine of the Mandate of Heaven posited the need for rulers to govern justly and the right of subordinates to depose emperors who appeared to be acting without divine approval.

Leadership, according to pro-aristocracy thinkers, is determined by one's "blue blood" or genes. Monarchy takes an extreme view of the same concept, and can use divine sanction to back up its claims against those of mere aristocrats (see the divine right of kings). More democratic theorists, on the other hand, have cited examples of meritocratic leaders, such as Napoleonic marshals, who benefited from open careers.

Traditionalists recall the role of the Roman pater familias in the autocratic/paternalistic school of thought. Feminist thinking, on the other hand, may criticise patriarchal models and argue that "emotionally attuned, responsive, and consensual empathetic guidance, which is sometimes associated with matriarchies" should be used instead.

Leadership is a matter of intelligence, trustworthiness, humaneness, courage, and discipline ... Reliance on intelligence alone results in rebelliousness. Exercise of humaneness alone results in weakness. Fixation on trust results in folly. Dependence on the strength of courage results in violence. Excessive discipline and sternness in command result in cruelty. When one has all five virtues together, each appropriate to its function, then one can be a leader. — Jia Lin, in commentary on Sun Tzu, Art of War

Prior to the 19th century, society expected and received traditional deference and obedience from lords, kings, master-craftsmen, and slave-masters. Historically, industrialization, opposition to the old regime, and the abolition of chattel slavery meant that some newly developing organisations (nation-state republics, commercial corporations) developed a need for a new paradigm with which to characterise elected politicians and job-granting employers - thus the development and theorising of the concept of "leadership." Although the functional relationship between leaders and followers has not changed, acceptable (and perhaps euphemistic) terminology has.

The development of anarchist thought also called into question the concept of leadership in the nineteenth century. Leninism was one response to this denial of élitism; Lenin (1870-1924) demanded an élite group of disciplined cadres to act as the vanguard of a socialist revolution, establishing the proletariat dictatorship.

Other historical perspectives on leadership have looked at the apparent differences between secular and religious leadership. Throughout history, the doctrines of Caesaro-papism have resurfaced and had their detractors. The stewardship of divinely provided resources—human and material—and their deployment in accordance with a Divine plan has long been emphasised in Christian leadership thinking. Compare and contrast servant leadership.

Compare the concept of the statesperson for a broader view of political leadership.

Early western history

For centuries, people have been trying to figure out what makes a good leader. From Plato's Republic to Plutarch's Lives, philosophers have pondered the question, "What qualities distinguish a person as a leader?" The early recognition of the importance of leadership, as well as the assumption that leadership is rooted in the characteristics that certain individuals possess, fueled this search. The "trait theory of leadership" proposes that leadership is based on individual characteristics. Both of these notable works provided early support for the idea that leadership is rooted in leadership characteristics.

Cecil Rhodes (1853–1902) believed that public-spirited leadership could be developed by identifying young people with "moral force of character and instincts to lead" and educating them in environments (such as the University of Oxford's collegiate environment) that cultivated such characteristics. Such leaders could form international networks to promote international understanding and "make war impossible." The Rhodes Scholarships, which have helped to shape notions of leadership since their inception in 1903, were founded on this vision of leadership.

Rise of alternative theories

A series of qualitative reviews of these studies (e.g., Bird, 1940; Stogdill, 1948; Mann, 1959) prompted researchers to take a drastically different view of the driving forces behind leadership in the late 1940s and early 1950s. Stogdill and Mann found that while some traits were consistent across studies, the overall evidence suggested that people who are leaders in one situation may not be leaders in others. As a result, leadership was no longer seen as a permanent individual trait, as situational approaches (see alternative leadership theories below) suggested that people can be effective in some situations but not in others. The focus then shifted away from leadership traits and toward an examination of effective leader behaviours. For the next few decades, this approach dominated much of leadership theory and research.

Reemergence of trait theory

Following these influential reviews, new methods and measurements were developed, reestablishing trait theory as a viable approach to the study of leadership. Improved use of the round robin research design methodology, for example, allowed researchers to see that individuals can and do emerge as leaders in a variety of situations and tasks. Furthermore, statistical advances in the 1980s enabled researchers to conduct meta-analyses, which allowed them to quantitatively analyse and summarise the findings from a variety of studies. Rather than relying on qualitative reviews in the past, trait theorists could now create a comprehensive picture of previous leadership research. Leadership researchers discovered the following using new methods:

Individuals can and do emerge as leaders across a variety of situations and tasks.
Significant relationships exist between leadership emergence and such individual traits as:
1. Intelligence
2. Adjustment
3. Extraversion
4. Conscientiousness
5. Openness to experience
6. General self-efficacy

While the trait theory of leadership has resurfaced in popularity, it has not been accompanied by a corresponding increase in complex conceptual frameworks.

Specifically, Zaccaro (2007) noted that trait theories still:

Focus on a small set of individual attributes such as the "Big Five" personality traits, to the neglect of cognitive abilities, motives, values, social skills, expertise, and problem-solving skills.
Fail to consider patterns or integrations of multiple attributes.
Do not distinguish between the leadership attributes that are generally not malleable over time and those that are shaped by, and bound to, situational influences.
Do not consider how stable leader attributes account for the behavioral diversity necessary for effective leadership.

Attribute pattern approach

In light of the aforementioned criticisms of trait theory, several researchers have begun to adopt a new perspective on leader individual differences called the leader attribute pattern approach. The leader attribute pattern approach, in contrast to the traditional approach, is based on theorists' arguments that the influence of individual characteristics on outcomes is best understood by looking at the person as an integrated whole rather than a collection of individual variables. To put it another way, the leader attribute pattern approach contends that integrated constellations or combinations of individual differences can explain more variance in both leader emergence and effectiveness than single attributes or additive combinations of multiple attributes.

Behavioral and style theories

In response to the trait approach's early critics, theorists began to study leadership as a set of behaviours, evaluating the behaviour of successful leaders, establishing a behaviour taxonomy, and identifying broad leadership styles. Leadership, according to David McClelland, necessitates a strong personality with a well-developed positive ego. Self-confidence and high self-esteem are beneficial, if not necessary, for leading.

The seminal work on the influence of leadership styles and performance was developed by Kurt Lewin, Ronald Lipitt, and Ralph White in 1939. The researchers compared the performance of groups of eleven-year-old boys in various work environments. In each, the leader used three styles to exert influence over the type of group decision-making, praise and criticism (feedback), and management of group tasks (project management): authoritarian, democratic, and laissez-faire.

Ohio State University conducted a study in 1945 that looked into the visible behaviours displayed by effective leaders. They'd then figure out if these behaviours are indicative of leadership effectiveness. They were able to narrow down their findings to two distinct categories. The first dimension was identified as "initiating structure," which described how a leader communicates with followers clearly and accurately, sets goals, and determines how tasks are carried out. These are what are known as "task-oriented" behaviours. The second dimension is "consideration," which refers to a leader's ability to establish an interpersonal relationship with his or her followers, as well as mutual trust. These are referred to as "social" behaviours.

The Michigan State Studies, which were conducted in the 1950s, conducted additional research and discovered a link between behaviours and leadership effectiveness. They found similar results to the Ohio State studies, but they also identified a new trait in leaders: participative behaviour (also known as "servant leadership"), which involves allowing followers to participate in group decision-making and encouraging subordinate input. This entails avoiding command-and-control leadership styles and allowing for more personal interactions between leaders and subordinates.

A behavioural theory underpins the managerial grid model as well. Robert Blake and Jane Mouton created the model in 1964, and it proposes five different leadership styles based on the leaders' concern for people and their concern for achieving goals.

Positive reinforcement

B. F. Skinner is credited with inventing the concept of positive reinforcement and is considered the father of behaviour modification. When a positive stimulus is presented in response to a behaviour, it increases the likelihood of that behaviour occurring again in the future. In a business setting, positive reinforcement can be used in the following way. Assume that praise is a motivator for a specific employee. This employee does not consistently arrive at work on time. The manager decides to compliment the employee on his or her punctuality every day the employee reports to work on time. As a result, the employee is more likely to arrive on time because he or she enjoys being praised. In this case, praise (the stimulus) is a positive reinforcer for this employee because he or she is more likely to arrive at work on time (the behaviour) after being praised for doing so. Skinner's concept of positive reinforcement allows a behaviour to be repeated in a positive way, whereas a negative reinforcer is repeated in a way that is less plausible than the positive.

Positive reinforcement is a popular and effective technique for motivating and achieving desired behaviours from subordinates. Frito-Lay, 3M, Goodrich, Michigan Bell, and Emery Air Freight are just a few of the companies that have used reinforcement to boost productivity. Reinforcement theory has a 17 percent increase in performance, according to empirical research conducted over the last 20 years. Furthermore, many reinforcement techniques, such as praise, are low-cost, resulting in higher performance at lower costs.

Situational and contingency theories

As a reaction to the trait theory of leadership, situational theory arose. Social scientists argued that history was more than just the result of great men intervening, as Carlyle claimed. The times, rather than the other way around, produce the person, according to Herbert Spencer (1884) (and Karl Marx). According to this group of theories, no single optimal psychographic profile of a leader exists because different situations call for different characteristics. "What an individual actually does when acting as a leader is in large part dependent on characteristics of the situation in which he functions," according to the theory.

Some theorists began to combine trait and situational theories. Academics began to normalise the descriptive models of leadership climates, defining three leadership styles and identifying which situations each style works best in, based on Lewin et alresearch. .'s The authoritarian leadership style, for example, is acceptable in times of crisis but fails to win the "hearts and minds" of followers in day-to-day management; the democratic leadership style is more appropriate in situations that require consensus building; and, finally, the laissez-faire leadership style is valued for the degree of freedom it provides but can be perceived as a failure in long-term or thorny organisational problems because the leaders do not "take charge." As a result, theorists defined leadership style as conditional on the situation, a concept known as contingency theory. In recent years, three contingency leadership theories have gained traction: the Fiedler contingency model, the Vroom-Yetton decision model, and the path-goal theory.

The leader's effectiveness is based on what Fred Fiedler called situational contingency in the Fiedler contingency model. This occurs as a result of the interaction between leadership style and situational favorableness (later called situational control). The theory identified two types of leaders: those who prioritise completing the task by building positive relationships with the group (relationship-oriented) and those who prioritise completing the task itself (task-oriented) (task-oriented). There is no such thing as an ideal leader, according to Fiedler. Leaders who are task-oriented or relationship-oriented can be effective if their leadership style is appropriate for the situation. A "favourable situation" is one in which there is a good leader-member relationship, a well-structured task, and a high leader position power. Fiedler discovered that task-oriented leaders are more effective in situations that are either extremely favourable or unfavourable, whereas relationship-oriented leaders are most effective in situations that are intermediately favourable.

Victor Vroom developed a taxonomy for describing leadership situations in collaboration with Phillip Yetton (1973) and later Arthur Jago (1988), which was used in a normative decision model where leadership styles were linked to situational variables, defining which approach was more appropriate for which situation. This method was unique in that it supported the idea that a single manager could use different group decision-making approaches depending on the circumstances. Later, this model was dubbed "situational contingency theory."

Robert House (1971) developed the path-goal theory of leadership, which was based on Victor Vroom's expectancy theory. "The meta proposition that leaders, in order to be effective, engage in behaviours that complement subordinates' environments and abilities in a manner that compensates for deficiencies and is instrumental to subordinate satisfaction and individual and work unit performance," according to House. According to the theory, there are four types of leader behaviours: achievement-oriented, directive, participative, and supportive, all of which are influenced by environmental factors and follower characteristics. The path-goal model, in contrast to the Fiedler contingency model, states that the four leadership behaviours are fluid, and that leaders can use any of them depending on the situation. The path-goal model can be classified as a contingency theory because it changes depending on the situation, as well as a transactional leadership theory because it emphasises reciprocity behaviour between the leader and the followers.

Functional theory

Functional leadership theory (Hackman & Walton, 1986; McGrath, 1962; Adair, 1988; Kouzes & Posner, 1995) is especially helpful for addressing specific leader behaviours that are expected to contribute to organisational or unit effectiveness. According to this theory, a leader's primary responsibility is to ensure that whatever is required to meet the group's needs is met; thus, a leader can be said to have done their job well if they have contributed to group effectiveness and cohesion (Fleishman et al., 1991; Hackman & Wageman, 2005; Hackman & Walton, 1986). While functional leadership theory is most commonly associated with team leadership (Zaccaro, Rittman, & Marks, 2001), it has also been successfully applied to organisational leadership (Zaccaro, 2001). In a review of the literature on functional leadership (see Kozlowski et al. (1996), Zaccaro et al. (2001), Hackman and Walton (1986), Hackman & Wageman (2005), morge (2005), Klein, Zeigert, Knight, and Xiao (2006)), Klein, Zeigert, Knight, and Xiao (2006), Klein, Zeigert, Knight, and Xiao (2006), Klein, Zeigert, Environmental monitoring, organising subordinate activities, teaching and coaching subordinates, motivating others, and actively intervening in the group's work are some of these functions.

These functions are expected to be facilitated by a variety of leadership behaviours. Fleishman (1953) observed that subordinates perceived their supervisors' behaviour in terms of two broad categories referred to as consideration and initiating structure in his early work identifying leader behaviour. The behaviour involved in fostering effective relationships is taken into account. Showing concern for a subordinate or acting in a supportive manner towards others are examples of such behaviour. The leader's actions in initiating structure are specifically focused on task completion. This could include roles being clarified, performance standards being established, and subordinates being held accountable to those standards.

Integrated psychological theory

The Integrated Psychological Theory of Leadership is an attempt to combine the strengths of older theories (i.e. traits, behavioral/styles, situational, and functional) while also addressing their limitations, while also introducing a new element – the need for leaders to develop their leadership presence, attitude toward others, and behavioural flexibility through psychological mastery. It also provides a foundation for leaders who want to apply the servant leadership and authentic leadership philosophies.

Following the publication of James Scouller's Three Levels of Leadership model, integrated psychological theory began to gain traction (2011). The older theories, according to Scouller, provide only limited assistance in developing a person's ability to lead effectively.

He mentioned, for instance, that:

Traits theories, which tend to reinforce the idea that leaders are born not made, might help us select leaders, but they are less useful for developing leaders.
An ideal style (e.g. Blake & Mouton's team style) would not suit all circumstances.
Most of the situational/contingency and functional theories assume that leaders can change their behavior to meet differing circumstances or widen their behavioral range at will, when in practice many find it hard to do so because of unconscious beliefs, fears or ingrained habits. Thus, he argued, leaders need to work on their inner psychology.
None of the old theories successfully address the challenge of developing "leadership presence"; that certain "something" in leaders that commands attention, inspires people, wins their trust and makes followers want to work with them.

On the Businessballs education website, Scouller proposed the Three Levels of Leadership model, which was later classified as a "Integrated Psychological" theory. In essence, his model aims to summarise what leaders must do in order to not only provide leadership to their group or organisation, but also to grow as leaders technically and psychologically.

The three levels in his model are public, private and personal leadership:

The first two – public and private leadership – are "outer" or behavioral levels. These are the behaviors that address what Scouller called "the four dimensions of leadership". These dimensions are:
(1) a shared, motivating group purpose;
(2) action, progress and results;
(3) collective unity or team spirit;
(4) individual selection and motivation. Public leadership focuses on the 34 behaviors involved in influencing two or more people simultaneously. Private leadership covers the 14 behaviors needed to influence individuals one to one.
The third – personal leadership – is an "inner" level and concerns a person's growth toward greater leadership presence, knowhow and skill. Working on one's personal leadership has three aspects:
(1) Technical knowhow and skill
(2) Developing the right attitude toward other people – which is the basis of servant leadership
(3)Psychological self-mastery – the foundation for authentic leadership.

Self-mastery, according to Scouller, is the key to expanding one's leadership presence, developing trusting relationships with followers, and dissolving one's limiting beliefs and habits, allowing for behavioural flexibility as circumstances change while remaining connected to one's core values (that is, while remaining authentic). He introduced a new model of the human psyche and outlined the principles and techniques of self-mastery, which included the practise of mindfulness meditation, to aid leaders' development.

Transactional and transformational theories

Bernard Bass and colleagues proposed two types of leadership: transactional and transformational. Transactional leadership is based on concern for employees, intellectual stimulation, and providing a group vision. Transformational leadership is based on concern for employees, intellectual stimulation, and providing a group vision.

The transactional leader (Burns, 1978) is given authority to carry out specific tasks and to reward or punish team members based on their performance. It allows the manager to lead the group, and in exchange for something else, the group agrees to follow his lead to achieve a predetermined goal. When subordinate productivity is not up to par, the leader is given the authority to evaluate, correct, and train them, and to reward effectiveness when the expected outcome is achieved.

Leader–member exchange theory

The leader–member exchange (LMX) theory, which evolved from the vertical dyad linkage (VDL) model, addresses a specific aspect of the leadership process. Both of these models are concerned with how leaders and individual followers interact. This interaction is viewed as a fair exchange, in which the leader provides certain benefits such as task guidance, advice, support, and/or significant rewards, and the followers reciprocate by showing respect, cooperation, commitment to the task, and good performance, similar to the transactional approach. LMX recognises, however, that the type of exchange that develops between leaders and individual followers will vary. According to LMX, certain types of interactions between the leader and specific followers can result in the formation of in-groups and out-groups. Members of the in-group have high-quality exchanges with the leader, whereas members of the out-group have low-quality exchanges with the leader.

In-group members

The leader sees in-group members as more experienced, competent, and willing to take on more responsibility than other followers. The leader begins to rely on these individuals for assistance with particularly difficult tasks. If the follower responds positively, the leader will provide additional coaching, favourable job assignments, and developmental opportunities. If the follower demonstrates a high level of commitment and effort in exchange for additional rewards, both parties develop mutual trust, influence, and support. According to research, in-group members receive higher leader performance evaluations, higher satisfaction, and faster promotions than out-group members. Because they share similar social backgrounds and interests, in-group members are more likely to form stronger bonds with their leaders.

Out-group members

Out-group members are frequently given less time and have more distant interactions than in-group members. In exchange for a fair wage and standard benefits, out-group members are expected to provide adequate job performance, good attendance, reasonable respect, and adherence to the job description. Out-group members spend less time with the leader, have fewer developmental opportunities, and the leader emphasises his or her formal authority to obtain compliance with leader requests. Out-group members are less satisfied with their job and organisation, receive lower performance evaluations from their boss, perceive their boss as less fair, and are more likely to file grievances or leave the company, according to research.

Emotions

Leadership can be viewed as a particularly emotional process, with emotions intertwined with the process of social influence. The leader's mood has an impact on his or her team in an organisation. There are three levels to these effects.

The mood of individual group members. Group members with leaders in a positive mood experience more positive mood than do group members with leaders in a negative mood. The leaders transmit their moods to other group members through the mechanism of emotional contagion. Mood contagion may be one of the psychological mechanisms by which charismatic leaders influence followers.
The affective tone of the group. Group affective tone represents the consistent or homogeneous affective reactions within a group. Group affective tone is an aggregate of the moods of the individual members of the group and refers to mood at the group level of analysis. Groups with leaders in a positive mood have a more positive affective tone than do groups with leaders in a negative mood.
Group processes like coordination, effort expenditure, and task strategy. Public expressions of mood impact how group members think and act. When people experience and express mood, they send signals to others. Leaders signal their goals, intentions, and attitudes through their expressions of moods. For example, expressions of positive moods by leaders signal that leaders deem progress toward goals to be good. The group members respond to those signals cognitively and behaviorally in ways that are reflected in the group processes.

In client service research, it was discovered that the leader's positive mood improves the group's performance, though other findings were found in other sectors.

Aside from the leader's mood, the leader's behaviour is a source of positive and negative employee emotions at work. The leader creates situations and events that elicit an emotional response from the audience. These affective events are caused by certain leader behaviours displayed during interactions with their employees. Affective events in the workplace are shaped by leaders. Giving feedback, allocating tasks, and distributing resources are some examples. Employee emotional responses to organisational leaders are critical because their emotional states have a direct impact on their behaviour and productivity. Emotional intelligence, or the ability to recognise and manage one's own and others' moods and emotions, is important for effective leadership in organisations.

Neo-emergent theory

The neo-emergent leadership theory (from the Oxford Strategic Leadership Programme ) views leadership as an impression created by the leader's or other stakeholders' communication of information, rather than by the leader's actual actions. In other words, the majority's perception of leadership is based on the reproduction of information or stories. Historians know that naval hero Lord Nelson often wrote his own versions of battles he fought in so that when he returned home to England, he would be greeted as a true hero. In modern society, the press, blogs, and other sources report on their own views of leaders, which may or may not be based on reality, but may also be based on a political command, a payment, or the author, media, or leader's inherent interest. As a result, one could argue that all leaders' perceptions are fabricated and do not reflect their true leadership qualities. As a result, belief in (for example) royal blood has historically served as a proxy for belief in or analysis of effective governing skills.

Constructivist analysis

Some constructivists question whether leadership exists, or suggest that (for example) leadership "is a myth equivalent to a belief in UFOs".