Introduction
To better comprehend the contextual theories’ analysis, and their applications, the measure of success of the theory must be based on certain aspects such as success. There must be a means of establishing the way success is measured in the background where the model is tested. For the explanations of the analysis, all the principles are measured in a commercial setting and where achievement is associated to measurable standards of a business, for instance, value of a shareholder, yearly profits and unit sales. Besides, there are also softer methods such as good will and employee satisfaction. In this analysis, success in the circumstance of studying the behavior of a leader through a given theory means that there is a good fit between the behavior of a leader and the model. However, it does not imply that the success of a theory means the success of a leader since certain measures will be negatively linked to the performance of a leader.
Application of Leadership Theories
Leadership Paradigms
Every theory under consideration has advanced throughout and is yet studied as well as applied today to show approaches of leader’s behavior. Every theory acknowledges both the effect of the leader on followers as well as the interaction between the leader and the follower. Leader-member discussion is based majorly on the relationship between one leader and one follower (Diebig et al. 2016, 687). Thus, it is exclusive among other theories since it postures the conversation that a leader and an individual followers can have exclusive reasons whose aim is the accomplishment of the leader’s idea.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
According to theoretical analysis and empirical research, the pieces of research on organizations assert that contemporary organizations cannot manage in the absence of the attitude of the work of a manager. Managers must as well be leaders today, to enable his employees and motivate them towards work while lobbying for collaboration. Thus, he or she must have exceptional competences founded on great emotional alongside social intellect. Therefore, modern organizations require leaders with values, competencies, attitudes, professional characteristics and abilities to manage organizations.
The measurements of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory measurement are directed on the follower alongside his or her feeling of control and job satisfaction. Path-goal philosophy postures an insignificant direct relations between the leader and the follower. The leader follows the management by exception strategy and implements corrective input so that he or she gets the follower back to the path (Jing and Avery, 2016, 107). Those workers who are engaged in a tactical making of decisions, or are participating in the decision making process, have a feeling of more empowerment and involvement in the organization direction. However, even though there are no distinct relationships with productivity, there are supposed payoff in prospective pay as well as assignments. In path-goal system, the involvement, however the hope of participation, in the process of decision making, is an incentive and a contingent remuneration for the employees since there are implicit promise of prospective reward. But, in LMX concept, the paybacks to the worker are psychosomatic with enhanced locus of control, power perception, and self-esteem as the paybacks (Kahya et al. 2017, 23). The theories are not communally unique, although they are taking diverse appearances at the leader-follower relationships. Thus, it would gain from a fundamental analysis for their reconciliation.
From the perspective of the leader, both the theories have application from both transformational and transactional viewpoints. A transactional leader who practices an exceptional active management can apply a path-goal model to correct the behavior of an employee, where a transformational leader has access to both leader-member exchange (LMX) and path-goal theories. The explanation for the concept is the result, which the transactional leader observes as the whole output of the argument, and the transformational leader observes as a stage in the development of the follower.
Transformational leadership theory is founded on the concept that the organizational and members interests need to be integrated. The transformational leader carry out the act by applying the four Is to involve the followers in their vision for the organization as well as outline their effort towards achieving their vision. But, the transformational leadership theory yet allows for transactional behavior in the emphasis, whether negative or positive of the follower behavior. To motivate the followers, the transactional leader must appeal to both intellectual and emotions of the leader (Antonakis and House, 2014, 771). The leader thus will apply the best strategy available to lead followers in attaining his vision.
The leadership theories were selected since they exist at varied levels of the organization. The leader-member exchange (LMX) theory directly resolves the changing relationships between the leader and his subordinate in the context where the leader can change the fundamental of the relationship based on the requirements. Although, LMX theory does not resolve the dissemination of a vision as this takes place at a higher level (Kahya et al. 2017, 31). The leader generally will not disseminate his vision at an employee each time; however he can work with intractable persons in management with an environment as an exception.
The path-goal theory resolves the capacity of the leader to direct the subordinates’’ activities. Though, it does not resolve the requirements of the workers, nor does it attempt to consider workers as failing persons. The path-goal is a tool for a leader applying management exceptionally to direct employees (Diebig et al. 2016, 691).
The transactional-transformational theory is more comprehensive compared to the initial two theories since it incorporates their activities. The incorporation of activities is through the implications and expands founded on the leader actions through addition of the leader’s emotional argument, and conceptual influence that involves the follower at a completely new level (Stumpf et al. 2016, 471). The leader as well retains the capacity to function in a transactional approach in situations of more stability. Even though transformational leadership seems to be comprehensive, the principle does not adequately resolve the creation of effective teams, not does it comprehensively address the task-allied undertakings of the transformational leader.
FRLT refers to the effort to complete a transactional-transformational philosophy with the accumulation of constituents. FRLT is greater than transactional-transformational theory since it has comprehensive descriptive power as well as greater predictive features (Antonakis and House, 2014, 757). But, it has been established that the FRLT is associated with good outcomes more so when the theory is tested in harsh environments. The transactional features of leadership thus should be in place prior to the application of transformational tools.
The leader, practice or scholar model widely relates better to the transformational leader compared to transactional since the transformational concern of the leader for the values as well as needs of the organization and his sense are the elements to be acquired. For instance, in technology application, transformational leaders are more likely to acquire the effect of technology implementation than transactional leaders. An extrapolation is made that transformational leaders in their knowledgeable encouragement roles, must turn into life-long learners themselves (Zhang, Avery, Bergsteiner and More, 2014, 5).
Leaders can develop in educational settings to extend their leadership knowledge as well as the world around them. Others would oppose that philosophy is impractical, although to the leader it can affect his decisions with wisdom (Stumpf et al. 2016, 451). Thus, leadership training is based on the multifactor leadership questionnaire for participation of the leader that is being trained, his subordinates as well as superiors alongside a gathered report being offered to the leader. The leaders can move on to sessions of training where the established demerits are discussed and the behavior of the leader improved.
The leadership theories regarded all is based on a multi-dimensional scale that regards the physical, intellectual emotional as well as the leader’s and follower’s value structure. It is impossible for the leader to stay in one of the realms to the exclusion of others (Zhang et al. 2014, 11). FRLT is an exceptionally theory that strives to combine the dimensions into a solid whole. However, there is the risk of the leader of being highly enamored of transformational tools and he can lose track of follower’s behavior as well as activity. Thus, he allows problems that are likely to be established in his management by exceptional role. Also, charismatic leadership, even though highly appealing, is challenging to uphold on a day to day basis (Kahya et al. 2017, 37). The leader has the responsibility to indicate concern for the followers as well as spend time in emphasizing his vision. But, the leader cannot introduce a novel vision as well from time to time since it is likely to contribute to crisis mode, and which can burnout his followers while prompt to doubt his capacity. The key business environment has to be stable and the leader who is incapable of providing a stable environment is misleading.
In assessing the four philosophies, it seems that none of the four are counterproductive. A leader can therefore pursue the four of them in a balanced approach and anticipate for reasonable outcomes. The FRLT is the most comprehensive of the four theories since it incorporates numerous activities, together with multifactor leadership questionnaire as a certified tool. Further, FRLT is being established as a main theory and a foundation for a true paradigm the science of leadership.
Levels of Leadership
According to Avery (2004), there are 13 indices to distinguish between the four paradigms of organic, visionary and transactional. To differentiate the four leadership paradigms, nine indices are incorporated. The indices are the staff’s power range, decision making, the distance of power between the staff and the leader and key organizational player. In addition, they include source of commitment of the staff, responsibility of the staff, management situation and organizational leadership, organizational diversity situation as well as organizational control situation. The criteria are regarded as more applicable for differentiating the four paradigms of leadership compared to the four criteria.
Classical leadership is benevolent or coercive or can be a mixture of both since it is dominated by an elite group of persons or pre-eminent individual who are command the members to act towards a goal which could or could not be obviously stated. Classical leadership takes place where the leader has restricted command and control for every action, specifically as situations become increasingly complex and beyond an individual’s capacity. Further, there is restriction when more commitment from followers are required to get the job carried out, for example changing situations, or when concepts regarding leadership transformation and the followers do not subscribe to the domination. Also, it is challenging when the follower commitment begins to decline for other reasons. Another challenge is that the paradigm usually depends on the concept of the great individual, suggesting that only the selected few are good to practice initiative, and the belief has the potential to discourage followers in deskilling themselves while idealizing the leaders. The followers therefore seek as well as hold little power and leave the leader to in charge of company’s outcomes, to make comparatively little contributions to the company.
The linkage between the contexts of consultancy, objectives together with interventions is observed in the relations in the context of the competencies of the consultant. Thus, it is essential that in the competencies, the management consultants are supposed to implement various interventions, specifically those linked to organizations change processes. The capabilities and skills that management consultants should have must deliver ramifications for development, training, professionalism and management consultants’ selection. The practice theory, for instance, interventions, experiences the management consultants in application. The experienced management consultants apply both implicit and explicit regulations, models and heuristic to address situations, and to make decisions on the approaches and interventions that can fit the situation.
Selected Leadership Theories and Approaches
Numerous diverse paradigms of leadership categories have been proposed by different researchers. For instance, there are four dimensions of transformational leadership, no-leadership dimension of laissez-faire leadership and three dimensions of transactional leadership (Bass, 1985). On the other hand, there is a suggested categorization of leadership into four paradigms as mentions Avery (2004). Goleman (1995) proposes leadership paradigms to be categorized into six.
Irrespective of Bass (1985) contributing majorly to leadership model, the model over-stresses the need of one or two paradigms of leadership such as visionary and transactional and eliminates the organic and classical paradigms (Antonakis and House, 2014, 753). Bass emphasizes that visionary or transformational leaders are closely always more successful than transactional leaders. Whereas the idea in itself does not dispute the concept of visionary leadership, Bass features more to transformational (visionary) leadership more than he should. According to Avery (2004), both visionary and transactional leadership can be applicable widely, incorporating situations where there are inadequate resources for a manager to depend on providing external rewards. In addition, it can be applicable where the situations are complex as well as ambiguous and depends heavily on the commitment and knowledge of the follower. According to Avery, there are some situations where transactional leadership can be the effective form of leadership, including when the followers are unwilling to commit to the vision of the followers.
As opposed to Bass (1985), Avery (2004) in his model, paradigms offer a wide range of basis allowing for varied leadership forms that have changed at varied times and in diverse places. The paradigms are important for indicating that there is no one best method of thinking about leadership although, different forms of leadership indicate historical and social roots. Avery’s leadership model provides room for leadership to rely on the context, respond to the needs as well as preferences of the organization, while engaging interdependent aspects that can be manipulated.
Therefore, there is the need to make clear the relationships between, the context where the change occurred, the approach that was used, the interventions that were decided on as well as the competencies that the consultant desired to carry out the intervention. The rationale for the choice includes a change taking place in a particular situation. Based on the context, the consultant choses an approach and allied interventions. In an attempt to implement the interventions, certain competencies are required of the consultant. Some of the competencies are particular to intervention whereas other is fundamental since they are usually required, independent of the specific or context of the intervention. The associated background features of the consultant are thus linked to the approach the consultant decides on, the interventions he applies and the needed competencies.
Follower Theory
The effectiveness of the leader follower management style is more challenging to ascertain as well as manipulate. The workplace leader-follower theory is important in the definition of a culture and methods of carrying out business (Diebig et al. 2016, 691). The management style works best in particular situations such as in the projects that needs hands-on style of management as well as in companies focused on quick turnaround of goods or services. Training of employees and group discussions consume a lot of time, thus it is suitable for only organizations in pursuit of quick decisions of management (Roberts and Levine, 2014, 43). There is continuity since it relies on one style of management. The leader-follower style of management allows for easier replacement of a leader since the new model of leadership is similar to the one replaced. However, there are minor employees and managers who characteristically lack the confidence in taking over the challenging tasks when working in companies that apply leader-follower style of management. The lack of confidence is as a result of the leader assuming all the directional tasks and receives the honors and criticism for the work completed (Antonakis and House, 2014, 751). The leader-follower style as well fails to offer workers the chances to assess alternative solutions to multifaceted work issues.
Power and Politics
Embedded in the processes of decision making plays a key issue which is who and what does the business exist for. A majority subscribe to the ideology that the main goal of leadership is to maximize the value of the shareholder. The decisions determine whether the value of shareholder will be strengthened in the short-term or long term or a combination of both.
However, the first approach of a shareholder for example that emerged and is predominant in the Anglo/US society. In the extreme form of the Anglo/US, pursues solely the profit which is a threat to the neoliberal capitalism since the emphasis on short term profits disheartens long term thinking, investment as well as planning. The aim of a business is past only making profits to something better, such as greater level purpose. Therefore, the companies must take into consideration other stakeholders, alongside generating economic value by societal value creation (Roberts and Levine, 2014, 39).
Additionally, the issue on the purpose of a business should be in the form that companies visualize themselves as an interdependent component of the community that incorporates of several stakeholders whose interests are fundamental to the success of a business. Thus, a business can be observed as an approach to long term cooperative relations between the affected parties. The affected parties may incorporate the company’s manager together with employees, clients and customers, suppliers, investors, the nations, the states and the towns where the company is situated and sells its products and services. The parties as well include the prospective generations of stakeholders. In that system, the influence of the stakeholder generates pressure for the company to behave in environmentally, ethical and socially responsible manner. In return, the interdependency assists the company to be sustainable as well as resilient (Šimanskienė and Župerkienė, 2014, 81).
The alternative strategy to leadership is differently known as sustainable, or honeybee or Rhineland leadership. By being sustainable does not mean a company is going green or is socially responsible. Sustainable leadership necessitates taking a long-term perception in decision making processes, enhancing systematic innovation focused on increasing the value of a customer, developing a competent, loyal and highly participative workforce and providing quality goods, services as well as solutions (Risher, 2015, 23). To a section of skeptics, sustainable leadership, which is a management model focused offering better and further sustainable returns, while lessening unwanted employee turnover and increasing innovation sounds better than truth. The concept is another system of humanistic management, a good management practice and follows the old values. However, there are certain elements of truth in the characterizations. Sustainable leadership adopts features of humanistic management such as valuing persons and acknowledging the company as a contributor to social well-being (Šimanskienė and Župerkienė, 2014, 87).
According to Warren Bennis individual practices of sustainable leadership include recruitment, training, and employment of effective top team of leadership (Roberts and Levine, 2014, 45). Companies as well should be transparent in terms of their finances to be more ethical. But, according to Peter Drucker, managers should enhance transformation and allow innovations throughout the organization to enable common individuals to make more things happen. On the other hand, Stephen Covey proposed for the application of knowledge as well as engagement of the company’s employees (Šimanskienė and Župerkienė, 2014, 85).
The practices form a self-emphasizing leadership model that strengthens the performance of the business as well as its future for survival. Another significant element is that sustainable leadership practices are completely opposed to the characteristic shareholder-first approach.
Substitute for Leadership and Management
The substitute for leadership suggests that, based on some conditions, situational features can substitute for leadership. Also, there are situational features that can neutralize leadership such as preventing the leader from taking an action. The leaders substitutes can be organizational or situational factors including job design and a cohesive work group, and characteristics of the followers such as training, previous experience and ability. Thus, jobs that are well-designed, are clear, meaningful and are of intrinsic motivation require little inspiration and guidance from the leader. For instance, the vitamin approach incorporates the necessity for environmental clarity as well as outside generated goals and the model characteristics of the job are the feedbacks on the development towards a goal. A group that is highly cohesive is as well capable of working in the absence of close supervision (Stumpf et al. 2016, 469). However, there are certain elements that can affect good leadership and they include leadership neutralizers. For instance, they incorporate a leader with inadequate formal power to make changes as well as offer resources. The benefit of the theory is its focus on understanding the context within which the leadership takes place as opposed to discounting the leadership values.
The model’s hypothetical proposals envisage that leadership substitutes can act as moderators in the relations between leadership and efficacy. Even though there are impacts of leadership substitute on the measurements of outcome, there is a challenge in empirical demonstration. Thus, there is a mix in the model for empirical support for a substitute for leadership which requires the need for more complicated testing, such as application of longitudinal designs in understanding the processes over time.
The strength for a substitute for leadership model is its acknowledgement of the responsibility of the followers in the process of leadership, as opposed to the leader’s characteristics and behavior. The latter is usually over-stressed, resulting to leadership romance. As teams advance over time, evolving states emerge, for instance, group cohesion. More emergent state include shared leadership where team members share leadership and the influences here are lateral, that is between members of a team and not hierarchical, for instance leader-subordinate. Due to the need of teams for the functioning of organizations, the area is focused for growth since leadership goes beyond emphasis on the leader.
Sustainable Leadership in Practice
There have been a majority of sustainable-led organizations throughout varied sectors or nations, or institutions in different contexts. The effective enterprises that have adopted principles of sustainable leadership are particularly SMEs and private-led organizations. But, it is probable and challenging for listed private equity groups and corporations to function on sustainable philosophies since there are pressures on them to accomplish short-term performance goals. Though, many listed companies succeed in operating sustainably, more so by focusing on financial markets management.
On the other hand, with regards to pay off as a result of sustainable leadership, an acknowledged body of proof indicates that sustainable practices have the capacity to strengthen the performance of a business than the first-approach of a shareholder. For instance, an assessment of Anglo/US system and Rhineland shows that Rhineland philosophies are more sustainable as well as lead to better results than the shareholder-first strategy (Jing, Avery and Bergsteiner, 2014, 357). Also, according to Avery and Bergsteiner, each practice in their pyramid model, shows the way they are probable to lead to positive business results as opposed to their counterparts based on shareholder-first approach. For instance, a key variation between sustainable practices and shareholder first hand depends on whether they retain individuals or lay them off during challenging times (Jing et al. 2014, 361). Staff retention is a basic feature in the pyramid since circumstances focused on keeping staff are likely to be initiated any time. Though, retaining staff supports different higher order results in the pyramid, thus allowing knowledge retention, quality support, innovation and trust; as well as strengthens the financial performance, customer and staff satisfaction.
References
Antonakis, J. and House, R.J., 2014. Instrumental leadership: Measurement and extension of transformational–transactional leadership theory. The Leadership Quarterly , 25 (4), pp.746-771.
Diebig, M., Bormann, K.C. and Rowold, J., 2016. A double-edged sword: Relationship between full-range leadership behaviors and followers' hair cortisol level. The Leadership Quarterly , 27 (4), pp.684-696.
Jing, F.F. and Avery, G.C., 2016. Missing links in understanding the relationship between leadership and organizational performance. The International Business & Economics Research Journal (Online) , 15 (3), p.107.
Jing, F.F., Avery, G.C. and Bergsteiner, H., 2014. Enhancing multiple dimensions of performance in small professional firms through leader–follower trust. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources , 52 (3), pp.351-369.
Kahya, M., Kahya, M., Şahin, F. and Şahin, F., 2017. The effect of leader personality on follower behaviour: The mediating role of leader-member exchange. Leadership & Organization Development Journal .
Risher, H., 2015. Employers need to invest to strengthen performance management.
Roberts, D.R. and Levine, E., 2014. Employee Surveys: A Powerful Driver for Positive Organizational Change. Employment Relations Today , 40 (4), pp.39-45.
Šimanskienė, L. and Župerkienė, E., 2014. Sustainable Leadership: the New Challenge for Organizations. In Forum Scientiae Oeconomia (Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 81-93).
Stumpf, S.A., Tymon, Jr, W.G., Ehr, R.J. and van Dam, N.H., 2016. Leading to intrinsically reward professionals for sustained engagement. Leadership & Organization Development Journal , 37 (4), pp.467-486.
Zhang, T., C. Avery, G., Bergsteiner, H. and More, E., 2014. The relationship between leadership paradigms and employee engagement. Journal of Global Responsibility , 5 (1), pp.4-21.
