What are the variables through which leadership potential can be identified? Over the years innumerable studies have focused on everything from situational leadership to the contingency approach to leadership. In other words, researchers continued to look for links between leaders' behavior, their personality characteristics and situational variables. The question as to whether different situations required different kinds of leaders continued. Meanwhile, Hoy and Miskel focused their attention on the contingency approach, attempting to "specify the conditions or situational variable that moderate the relationship between leader traits or behaviors and performance criteria" [1987: 274].
Prior to that, in 1967, Fiedler attempted to differentiate between behavior and leadership styles. He concluded that there was a clear link between leaders' specific actions and leadership behaviors. Furthermore, he noticed a similarity between the motivational system of leaders and a corresponding leadership style. From this he concluded that the style of leadership, taken together with the kind of situation they were in, resulted in how effective the group was at fulfilling tasks. Situational characteristics, in conjunction with leaders' effectiveness, were the subject of House's research in 1971. From this House came up with the Path-Goal Theory that expressed how an appropriate interaction between the behaviors of leaders in conjunction with situational characteristics resulted in the effectiveness of leaders' effectiveness.
Using the Path-Goal Theory, House isolated four leadership qualities:
Directive
Achievement-orientated
Supportive
Participative
Furthermore, House identified two variables, both situational:
The personal characteristics of those who were in subordinate positions
The rules and regulations of the relevant organization. This could also be identified as environmental demands.
In truth, House's Path-Goal Theory failed to answer some questions. The Contingency Models, of which the Path-Goal Theory was a part, was still unable to fully explain how personality characteristics, leaders' behaviors and situational variables could combine to provide the most effective leadership material. Bearing this in mind, Barnes and Kriger [1986] suggested the idea of organizational leadership. They explained the reason for this particular model. No conclusion had yet been reached about effective leadership because the previous models:
"…deal more with the single leader and mult-follower concept than with organizational leadership in a pluralistic sense" [Barnes and Kriger, 1986: 15].
Barnes and Kriger cite the importance of the whole organization, emphasizing that leadership should not be focused on an individual's personality or the skills of one person. Rather, attention should be focused on the whole organization where leader roles overlap, each being complemented by the other. They go on to explain that these leadership roles become: "…shifted from time to time and from person to person…" [p.16].
From this Barnes and Kriger suggest that their theory exhibits a "more inclusive concept of leadership" [p.16]. Studies by Slater and Doig [1988] seem to reinforce the opinion that the organization should be at the centre of studies involving leadership skills. Their work appears to go along with the suggestions made by Barnes and Kriger that, within organizations, leadership roles often tend to overlap and complement each other, with leadership often shifting from one leader to another, depending on the situation that is appropriate at any given time. Slater and Doig make this quite clear by stating that a ‘team of individuals' could also be used for leadership within an organization [1988: 296]. Murphy, too, advocates the effectiveness of organizations with multiple leaders at different positions within the organization's hierarchy [1988: 655].
Over the years four main classifications of leadership theories have emerged. These include Trait Theories; Behavioral Theories; Contingency Theories; together with Power and Influence Theories. The first of these groups refers to the best kind of person that has the makings of a good leader; the second of the groups relates to the kinds of things a good leader does to establish that hierarchy; the third group refers to how circumstance may affect the quality of leadership; whilst the final group explains the relationship between the accepted leader and where that actual recognition of leadership qualities emerged from.
- SCHOOLS AND COLLEGES STRESS MANAGEMENT
- Giving Recognition for Employee Achievement
- A Deeper Understanding of Our Own Motivational Intelligence “MIQ”
- LEADERSHIP AND LEADERSHIP STYLES IN CORPORATE ESTABLISHMENT
- Development and Validation of Giftedness Assessment Instrument (GAI) for the Identification of Creative –Productive Giftedness ability