LEADERSHIP MODELS

Running head: LEADERSHIP MODELS

Leadership Models Francisco Espinosa University of Phoenix

LEADERSHIP MODELS

Abstract This essay will describe four leadership models, comparing their similarities and differences, and their effectiveness in the face of contemporary issues and challenges. For the purpose of this essay, models and theories will be used as interchangeable concepts. Leadership styles will be treated as subsystems of a model. Finally, the full-range leadership theory (FRLT) will be treated as a theory trying to encompass most or all the models in a single integrative one (Antonakis & House, 2002). Introduction Because of the importance and repercussion that leadership has had and will continue having in human history, eminent writers and thinkers have always tried to understand the variables that permit the control of leadership, as a means to produce or generate it in the amount, quality and time desired. A huge amount of theories trying to explain concepts around leadership has appeared since the beginning of the twentieth century, and important advances in the comprehension of this concept had been attained. Nevertheless, as it usually happens with other social concepts, no satisfactory control has been reached. Human beings seem to have special difficulties trying to understand and dominate themselves. The amount of progress, compared with that in natural sciences, seems still low, two world wars and many regional ones during the last century, and a threatened contemporary world may be the best example. In the end, humanity studies leadership in order to make a better world, to know how to educate people to become better rulers of countries, better politicians, managers of organizations, teachers, parents, and in general, better persons capable to improve their parcel of the world. Is the leader a necessary person in an organization? Would not organizations (specially the big ones), having many brilliant people working for them, have the resources to survive and prosper

LEADERSHIP MODELS

without the need of a remarkable leader? The relatively recent case of IBM at the beginning of the 1990s, just at the border of a crash (Gerstner, 2002) and becoming strong again after the harsh but right decisions of one person, would illustrate how important a leader may be. Two citations may summarize the idea of the crucial importance of leadership in organizations: without leadership, nothing works (Business leadership: A Jossey-Bass reader, 2003, p. xiv), and Without leaders, good results are a matter of random chance, and therefore unsustainable. (p. 5). Four Leadership Models Which four models? Why? These may be two valid questions at the beginning of this section. According to Antonakis and House (2002) an integrative theory named full-range leadership theory (FRLT) has attained vast acceptance by modern and outstanding researchers in the field, and has been also backed by an important number of empirical studies. FRLT includes three important models which represent the fruits of different streams of thought on leadership: Transformational and charismatic leadership, transactional leadership, and instrumental leadership. The fourththe laissez-faire modelwill be set aside in this essay since it represents just the abdication of leadership. The situational leadership model will be considered mostly included in the instrumental leadership model, since it considers two factors of situational leadership: follower work facilitation, which corresponds with the supportive behavior; and strategic leadership, including environmental monitoring, which in part corresponds to the amount of guidance the leader gives in the situational leadership model. The third element of situational leadership, the follower readiness (willingness and self-confidence), is already considered in the other two modelstransformational and transactionalas they deal with longand short-term motivations.

LEADERSHIP MODELS

Servant leadership will be included as a fourth model, not so much for comparison, because this model of leadership belongs to another dimension (Graham, 1991), but to give the other models a special touch, a different connotation, showing how (when added as a special ingredient), it improves leadership of any kind. As Greenleaf (2003) stated The servant-leader is servant first (p.117). Servant leadership points out to the most profound aspect of a leader, that is, the reason to be a leader, maybe the ideal motive. Surprisingly, Antonakis and House (2002), when they state the individual motives to be added to the FRLT, they only mention the needs for power, achievement, and affiliation. This may have been a moment to include the servant leadership concept. Transformational and charismatic leadership model seems one of the most important, if not the most, as may be inferred from Avolio and Yammarino (2002, p. xv, 12), and Bass (1990). These authors recommend the models of transactional and instrumental leadership as complementary models to the transformational one. Focusing more on business leadership, the extraordinary book Business leadership: A JosseyBass reader (2003) presents a summary of some of the most important leadership theories being studied in modern times. Much of the ideas on situational leadership and servant leadership will be taken from this book, as a means to complement the analysis. The co-leadership theory which is also a contemporary and interesting leadership modelwill be considered as included in servant leadership.

Similarities and differences In order to analyze the similarities and differences of the selected models, it will be useful to start by describing briefly the main factors which constitute the transformational leadership model.

LEADERSHIP MODELS

The next step will be to arrange the other models and their different factors in a matrix, trying to discover which onesand in which factorsintersect with transformational leadership. In a diagram, the general idea would look like this:

Servant Transformational Instrumental Transactional

Important to note is that elements or subclasses of a model can be present in different degrees, but it would be rare to find a case of leadership possessing one element in high degree, and the others in no degree at all. For example, a transformational leader may rank low in charismatic leadership, but he or she may be high in intellectual inspiration. The profile of a leader may be contrasted against the organizational situation, to see which aspects are deficient. The following table may be an example of a transformational leadership profile:
LEADERSHIP PROFILE Insuficient LEVEL Minimum Required Excellent Recommended Actions

LEADERSHIP SUBCLASS Charisma

Motivation

Intellectual Challenge

Individualized consideration

FACTORS Attributed Behavior Mission Vision Values Goals Challenge status quo Risk taking Innovation Emotional support Development Empowering

Of course, it would be possible to be even more specific by dividing each factor into additional sub-factors.

TRANSFORMATIONAL

LEADERSHIP MODELS

The following stage is to define briefly and compare the four models. But, what is transformational leadership? Fundamentally, a leadership model seeking longterm and transcendental goals, with some elements, the values, that must be lived every day, and are necessary to attain a qualified goal, a vision and a mission; not just the goal is important, but also how the organization achieves it. This model, as Judge (2004) states, has four main constitutional elements: Charisma, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration. Charisma refers to the influence leaders have because followers idealized them, and think they are to some extent superior beings. Charismatic leaders behave as heroes, as special, admirable, and somewhat mysterious persons. For example, they may display outstanding convictions, or take uncommon stands. The relationship tends to be more emotional than rational. Inspirational motivation implies leaders to present to the followers an appealing and high-level vision, impressive goals, a mission to be fulfilled, and a set of values to be lived. All this relates with an attractive future, and produces commitment to that future. Intellectual stimulation means to challenge assumptions, constantly improving the status quo, it motivates change, creativity, and risk taking. Finally, individualized consideration is to attend followers needs in a customized dimension, by listening, coaching, or mentoring. Needs and support may be functional or emotional (Avolio & Yammarino, 2002, p. 10). Bass (1990) gives immense importance to this model, saying that transformational leadership is often the sole difference between success and failure. Critics of transformational leadership point out the danger that, in the change efforts, many transformational leaders may become egoistic, looking mainly for their own and wrong desires

LEADERSHIP MODELS

and interests (Clint, 2006). When servant leadership motivation is joined to transformational leadership, it becomes harder to fall into this kind of danger. According to Greenleaf (1973), The servant-leader makes sure that other peoples highest priority needs are being served. The best test [of leadership] is: do those served grow as persons; do they, while being served, become healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous, more likely themselves to become servants? (p. 7).

Transactional leadership is another model, but how does it differentiate from the transformational? A development by Bass from the Burns transforming leader concept (Avolio & Yammarino, 2002, p. 8), transactional leadership is essentially a reward/supervision/punishment system which looks for tradingpolitical, economic, or emotional goodswith the followers in order to attain a short-term goal. When selfishness appears in transformational leadership, it tends to disappear and, with no long-term qualified goals, only short-term transactional leadership is left (Clint, 2006). Transactional leadership is a system looking mainly for short-term (quarterly or even annually) results, or in its best case, a long-term goal but supposing no major environmental change. This does not mean that transformational should replace transactional leadership. In reality, they are highly complementary, in a delicate combination (Bass, 1998). Any organization, as constituted by human beings, needs to give both, short- and long-term motives so as to work better. People may will to climb a mountain, but they need food for the track. Maslows theory of human needs is still valid, as Spiro, Stanton and Rich (2003)speaking of sales force motivationremind us. Although some exceptional situations and persons exist, rewardsexternal motivationsare necessary to persist in and intensify the effort to achieve the goals. They define motivation as

LEADERSHIP MODELS

The desire to expend effort to fulfill a need is what we call motivation. (p. 223). Lastly, rewards must help to align short- with long-term goals. According to Antonakis and House (2002), transactional leadership has three main components: reward (contingency rewards), supervision (management-by-exception active), and punishments (management-by-exception passive). The reward component is a positive transaction, although not as strong as the transformational elements like the charismatic (admiration), the inspirational (vision, mission and values), and the intellectual (challenge). The other two components, active and passive correction, are negative transactions. Active (or preventive) style may be useful when followers need to acquire new and delicate knowledge, when the results of a mistake could be catastrophic, like in managing a nuclear plant. The leader applying the active style improperly tends to micromanage, that is, to watch the followers so closely that the process becomes inefficient. The passive style may be useful when forming a culture among people with high tendency to not to respect the norms, or when respecting certain norms is essential (Hofstede, 1991). Wrongly used, this style takes the leader to kill any creativity in the followers, and to stifle followers personal development. Both active and passive transactional styles tend to oppose directly to intellectual stimulation in transformational leadership.

Instrumental leadership should now be defined and compared to the others. According to Antonakis and House (2002), this model is composed of two subclasses: strategic leadership and follower work facilitation leadership.

LEADERSHIP MODELS

Strategic leadership involves assessing the environment (the situation) and, consequently, devising a strategy and the way to implement it. Follower work facilitation leadership, means path-goal facilitation, and results monitoring. Pathgoal facilitation means, according to Evans (1970), to facilitate the path toward the goal. According to Vecchio, Justin, and Pearce (2008), this aspect of path-goal or work facilitation involves a strong statistical relationship with transformational and transactional leaderships.

Servant leadership, on the other side, helps every model by giving a profound and distinct reason to lead. When leaders apply any subclass of leadership or any factor, he or she could do it by different reasons: power, fame, social recognition, money or it may be mainly the interest to serve the organization and its people. Service works as an important value, and more than a value, because a servant leader is more able to make sacrifices for his or her followers and for the organization. How do these models compare among them? Following the idea of Antonakis and House (2002, p. 21), a comparison of leadership factors against models may be useful:

LEADERSHIP MODELS

10

FULL-RANGE LEADERSHIP THEORY

Models --> Leadership subclasses -->

Charisma (Attributions & Behavior)

TRANSFORMATIONAL Motivation Intellectual challenge Customized consideration Emotional support. Development. Empowerment.

TRANSACTIONAL Contingency rewards Management- Managementby-exception by-exception active passive

INSTRUMENTAL Strategic Follower work facilitation

SERVANT Serve first. Organizational good. Followers' personal good.

Summarized descriptions --> FACTORS (Leader's behaviors): Generates followers' confidence Generates followers' willingness Support to followers' knowledge Support to followers' skills Emotional support & followers' needs Followers' development & empowering Respect for followers Supervision & control Followers' behavior control Risk and change stimulation Innovation stimulation Context monitoring Formulates strategy Promotes long-term results Transcendental rewards Economic rewards Emotional rewards Political rewards (power related) Promotes short-term results

Power, values, Innovation, ideals attributed Mission, change, risk, & corresponding vision, values challenge behavior status quo

Rewards

Supervision

Punishments

Context monitoring. Path-goal facilitation. Strategy formulation, Results monitoring. implementation.

yes yes yes yes yes yes if needed yes yes yes yes yes

some yes yes yes yes

yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes

yes yes yes

yes

yes

yes yes

yes

The table shows that some factors appear in different leadership models. Followers willingness, for example, appears positive in various leadership styles, but for different reasons: moved to follow a charismatic leader, or motivated by the mission and vision, or attracted by the reward, or just for the good relationship with the leader because he or she facilitates the work. Strategic instrumental leadership focuses on the knowledge and skillsand even includes some the emotional supportthe followers need to implement the strategy, while the customizedconsideration transformational leader focuses on knowledge, skills, and attitudes needed to fulfill the mission and the vision, even if the current strategy changes. In a company, for instance, the instrumental leader would take the sales force to a course to improve sales skills, while the transformational leader would take them to a course to strengthen their values, and to better comprehend the organizations vision and mission.

This leadership model helps as a positive modifier of each factor

yes yes

yes yes

yes

yes

yes yes yes yes

yes yes

LEADERSHIP MODELS

11

The strategic instrumental leader would convince followers by the clarity of the strategy, while the contingency-reward transactional leader would do it by offering them a juicy reward. The charismatic transformational leader would convince by his or her strong personality, while the motivational transformational leader would do it by communicating a persuasive sense of mission and a compelling vision. Emotional rewards appear in different leadership models and styles. These emotions are of different kinds. Some have to do with following a wonderful leader, others with the fulfillment of a mission, others with gaining an economic reward or with avoiding a punishment, others, finally, with the feeling of friendship. A servant leader would know that emotions are highly subject to manipulation, and he or she would make a correct use of them. Effectiveness For an integrative leadership theoryand a leaderto be effective, not only is it necessary to include the elements of every model, but to take care of one critical aspect in this assembling process: alignment. All levels and factors of the leadership models must be aligned to accomplish the mission. Certainly, in practice, this is much easier to say than to do. Effectiveness will depend on the apt application of every factor to the usually shifting situations a leader has to face. Fine instrumental leaders would assess the environmental situation and the resources they may count on. Then, theywith their teamdesign the proper strategy and tactical actions to be taken. They also consider the supportknowledge, skills, emotional attitudesneeded by their team. Besides being complete and aligned, in order to be effective, a leadership system must use the elements in the right degree. Not all the factors are needed in the same amount in a given

LEADERSHIP MODELS

12

situation. Like a good chemist, the leader should add every ingredient in the right proportion for the mixture to perform well. Conclusion A comprehensive leadership system needs to make smart use of all the elements of the leadership models. Trying to say it in a summarized manner, a leadership system should ideally have an admired (charismatic) leader who communicates a compelling and intellectually challenging vision according to the organizations mission, to be achieved respecting the organizations values. The values should include a profound respect for every person, and the leader should exhibit this respect exemplarily. The leader must examine the context and, consulting with his or her people, design a strategy and the tactical procedures to be followed. There must be stimulating short- and middle-term rewards, aligned to the values and long-term goals, promoting creativity and calculated risk. It must be enough training and teaching support, coaching, and mentoring for everybody in the organization. There must be also a close control on delicate processes in order to avoid costly errors. Finally, there must be high penalties for failing to behave properly or to respect the norms related to the most important values of the organization. Like permeating the previous ideas, remarkable leaders must be motivated by the desire to serve their followers and the organizations they work for, helping their people to grow as persons while continuously improving their results in the organizations, constantly fighting against the human tendency to exert power and acquire fame or economic rewards in a disorderly manner; and, by their example and exhortations, talented leaders should pull their followers to do the same.

LEADERSHIP MODELS

13

References Antonakis, J., & House, R.J. (2002). The full-range leadership theory: the way forward. In B.J. Avolio & F.J. Yammarino (Eds.), Transformational and charismatic leadership: The road ahead. (pp. 3-33). New York: Elsevier. Avolio, B.J., & Yammarino, F.J. (2002). Transformational and charismatic leadership: The road ahead. New York: Elsevier. Bass, B. M. (1990). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18(3), 19-31. Bass, B. M. (1998). The ethics of transformational leadership. In J. B. Ciulla (Ed). Ethics, the heart of leadership. (pp.169-192). London: Quorum. Business ledership: A Jossey-Bass reader. (2003). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Clint, K. (2006). Transformational leadership: A practice needed for first-year success. Online Submissio, 14. De Pree, M. (2003). What is leadership? In Business Leadership: a Jossey-Bass reader (pp. 6571). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Evans, G. (1970). The effects of supervisory behavior on the path-goal relationship. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 5, 277298. Gerstner, L.V., Jr. (2002). Who says elephants cant dance? USA: Harper Collins Publishers. Graham, J. W. (1991). Servant leadership in organizations: Inspirational and moral. Leadership Quarterly, 2, 105119. Greenleaf, R. K. The Servant as Leader. Newton Center, Mass.: Robert K. Greenleaf Center, 1973. Greenleaf, R. K. (1977). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and

LEADERSHIP MODELS

14

greatness. New York: Paulist Press. Greenleaf, R.K. (2003). The servant as leader. In Business Leadership: a Jossey-Bass reader (pp. 117-136). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. Maidenhead, UK: McGraw-Hill Book Company. Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R., F. (2004, October). Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 755768. Spiro, R. L., Stanton, W. J., & Rich, G. A. (2003). Management of a Sales Force (11th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Tichy, N. M., & Cohen, M. (2003). Why are leaders important? In Business Leadership: a Jossey-Bass reader (pp. 4-28). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Vecchio, R. P., Justin, J. E., and Pearce, C. L. (2008). The utility of transactional and transformational leadership for predicting performance and satisfaction within a pathgoal theory framework. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 81, 71 82.