Introduction conclude, assumptions would be drawn from

IntroductionThisessay will be analysing the development of management and leadership theoriesover the last hundred years. Using various pieces of literature (Buchanan andHuczynski, 2017; Liborius, 2017; French et al., 2015; Conger, 1999), thetransformational leadership theory will be further explored in-depth. Acritical reflection on the literatures reviewed would also be analysed andapplied in practise. Furthermore, personal reflections on the overall module inregards to management and leadership, action plans in employing the knowledgederived from the research conducted as well as key success indicators would beidentified. To conclude, assumptions would be drawn from the analysed research.Whatis ManagementAsstated by French et al.

(2015, p. 289), management can be defined as a processwhich is ‘… more concerned with promoting stability and enabling theorganisation to run smoothly’ that also ‘… involves planning, organizing, leadingand controlling the use of organizational resources’. Various works ofliterature have also been recognised to support this viewpoint on definingmanagement, with the inclusion of achieving organisational goals (Solomon,Costea and Nita, 2016; Mintzberg, 2009; Kotter, 2006; Perloff, 2004; Zimmerman,2001; Maccoby, 2000; Zaleznik, 1977).

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

However, other studies further definemanagers as individuals whose authority is derived simply from position and power(Daft, 2003; Capowski, 1994).Whatis LeadershipStudyshows that there are no collectively agreed definition for leadership (Goethalset al., 2004). This is due to the distinct behaviours leaders demonstrate inengaging and influencing their followers (Fiedler, 1969). However, according toBuchanan and Huczynski (2017, p. 598), leadership is ‘the process ofinfluencing the activities of an organised group in its effort toward goalsetting and goal achievement’. In line with this definition, a prominent earlyobserver, Ralph Stogdill (1950), defined leadership as an interpersonal processof influencing, a social context of followership and a goal achievement driver.Maccoby (2000) further distinguishes leaders as agents of change.

Nevertheless,it has been argued that networked and virtual organisational forms, knowledgework, self-managing teams and flat structures, due to symbolism and hierarchyhave been recognised to cause a decline in the effectiveness of traditionalleadership (Buchanan and Huczynski, 2017). Formaland informal leadership can be identified as two forms of leadership (Buchananand Huczynski, 2017). An official authority given by an organisation to executepower to influence the achievement of goals is a formal leadership, while theexercising of resources and exceptional skills in influencing goals achievementis an informal leadership (Buchanan and Huczynski, 2017). Hence, bringing the proposeddefinitions of management and informal leadership side by side (French et al.,2015; Buchanan and Huczynski, 2017). Leadershipvs ManagementManagementand leadership are often used interchangeably (Toor and Ofori, 2008). While someliteratures have stated that leadership is merely a feature of a management role(Mintzberg, 2009), others claim there is a distinction between management andleadership (French et al., 2015; Perloff, 2004; Daft, 2003; Robbins, 2002;Zimmerman, 2001; Maccoby, 2000; Kumle and Kelly, 1999; Zaleznik, 1997;Capowski, 1994; Kotter, 1990, 2006; Bennis, 1989; Bennis and Nanus, 1985).

Buchananand Huczynski (2017) states that management and leadership can be separatedconceptually, yet, questioning its application in practise. According to Toorand Ofori (2008), managers have been recognised to perform leadership roles andvice-versa. However, Mawson (2001) still argues that more often the case, inpractise, things don’t work out that way. Although having philosophicaldifferences, management and leadership both share the mutual purpose of goalattainment (Zimmerman, 2001). It is also believed that whilst leadership mightbe essential, it may not be sufficient for an effective management (Paus,2008). Hence, if goals become the target, leadership versus/and managementbecomes the process (Zimmerman, 2001).

Developmentof Management and Leadership TheoriesOverthe past 100 years, a vast majority of academics have demonstrated an interest onthe theoretical approaches to leadership (Yukl, 2010). This has led to the developmentof theories such as the great man, trait, behavioural, contingency,transactional, transformational and authentic leadership approach (French etal., 2015). Asstated by Buchanan and Huczynski (2017), the great man theory identifiesleaders as being ‘born’, emerging to power irrespective of the historical,organisational or social context.

This belief can be recognised as the baseswith which the search for leadership qualities was developed (Buchanan andHuczynski, 2017). However, the validity and reliability of the study isweakened due to its sole focus on male political figures.Asacademics sought to identify the distinct behaviours of the ‘great person’, thetrait theory was developed (Bird, 1940; Stogdill, 1948, 1974; Kipnis and Lane,1962; Shaw, 1976; Fraser, 1978; Paglis and Green, 2002). This identifiedvarious personality traits attributed to successful leaders (Stogdill, 1974).Yet, the lack of uniqueness and considerations of social and organisational factorsled to the inability to create a universal trait theory (French et al.

, 2015). Therefore,critiques then prompted scholars to consider a behavioural approach ofleadership (Jenkins, 1947; Mann, 1959).Thebehavioural theory of leadership is analysed as ways leaders undertake tasks inachieving an effective performance (Likert, 1961).

Instead of focusing solely ontop leaders or figures, this theoretical approach studies leadership allthrough the organisational hierarchy (French et al., 2015). However, scholarshave argued that the behavioural approach lacks integration (Bennis, 1959;Avolio, 2007; Derue et al., 2011), a limitation also identified in the traitsapproach. It can also be recognised to lack the consideration of major socialand dispositional influences as well as the failure to ascertain selectedbehaviours to a definite performance in every situation or context (French etal.

, 2015). Hence, the development of the contingency theory on leadership. As oppose to other leadership theories whichfocuses on traits and behaviours, the contingency theory places emphasis onvital situational factors (Fiedler, 1967). Position power, task structure andleader-member relationship are broadly recognised as the situational factorsinfluencing leadership styles and effectiveness (Fishbein, Landy and Hatch,1969; Fiedler, 1972; Hersey and Blanchard, 1988). Nevertheless, according toBuchanan and Huczynski (2017), this theory has been critiqued on its vaguenessas it is identified to lack the consideration of other important contextualfactors such as external economic issues, working conditions, levels of stressand degree of change, organisational structure, design and technology.

Thiscould be due to the fact that Fiedler’s (1967) theory was developed fromstudies carried out on bomber crews and basketball teams (Buchanan andHuczynski, 2017), thus, missing the vital factors provided in an organisationalcontext. The transformational and transactionalleadership theory can be considered as a more recent approach to leadership (Bass,1985b; Bass and Riggio, 2006; French et al., 2015). The movement of attentiontowards these approach was influenced by Burns (1978) study on differentiatingpolitical leaders as a transactional or transformational leader. Often times, theseapproaches have been analysed as two opposite ends of a spectrum (Afsar et al.

,2016). While transformational leaders are known to have individualised consideration,intellectual stimulation, inspiration and charisma which influences a beyondexpectation or contract performance (Bass, 1985a; Bass and Avolio, 1990, 1994),transactional leaders are believed to build their leader-follower relationshipon an agreed performance established on contingent rewards, bargains and punishments(Bass, 1985b; French et al., 2015; Buchanan and Huczynski, 2017). Just as the ‘greatperson’ and traits theory, the transformational and transactional theory overlooksthe influence of situational and environmental business factors on effectiveleadership (Hollenbeck, McCall Jnr and Silzer, 2006; Boal, 2007).

Furthermore, relativeto the behavioural theory of leadership, these approaches also lack integrationand proof that all relevant leadership behaviours are identified (Yukl, 2009).Due to the gaps recognised in these philosophies, recent scholars have analysedauthentic leadership as a present concept for further study (Gardner et al.,2005; Gardner et al., 2011). Althoughnot collectively agreed upon, the term authentic leadership has been defined byvarious scholars (Rome and Rome, 1967; Henderson and Hoy, 1983; Bhindi andDuignan, 1997; Begley, 2001, 2004; George, 2003; Luthans and Avolio, 2003;Avolio et al.

, 2004; Avolio, Luthans and Walumba, 2004; Ilies, Morgeson andNahrgang, 2005; Shamir and Eilam, 2005; George and Sims, 2007; Walumbwa et al.,2008; Whitehead, 2009). In general, authentic leadership is viewed by these academicsas the: “acceptance of personal and organizational responsibilityfor actions, outcomes and mistakes; the non-manipulation of subordinates; and thesalience of the self over role requirements.” (Gardner et al., 2011, p. 1123).However,the concept of this theory has been criticised as leaders have been studied to disagreeon what constitutes equality as well as the demand for fairness and honesty (Price,2003).

It has also been recognised to ignore the political and practical facetof organisational leadership in addition to the probability of a false ornegative self-narrative (Berkovich, 2012).Inthe next section of this essay, the transformational approach will be exploredin-depth as an emerging leadership theory. TransformationalLeadership TheoryAsstated by Tichy and Devanna (1986), the main roles of a transformational leaderare institutionalising change, creating visions and recognising the need forrevitalization.

 

x

Hi!
I'm Mary!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out