Leadership and Followership Theories Research Assignment

Leadership and Followership Theories
Your name
Your Institution of Affiliation
December 15, 2017
Introduction
In almost any facet of life, the ability to guide individuals with different sets of beliefs and make them collaborate to efficiently achieve a single set of goals, is a rather indispensable skill. In spite of being a rather crude definition of leadership, this is nonetheless a good conception of a leader’s role within the organization. However, in light of the century-old study of leadership and administration, this definition is simply insufficient for all sense and purposes. Perhaps this is due to the fact that the concept of leadership could now be defined by many ways and/or principles. Amongst this debate is how to define this term in relation to differing points of reference (the leader or the follower). On one hand, plenty of studies have been dedicated on studying the leadership based on his actions, skills, and ideologies that he utilizes to guide his decisions. On the other hand, another perspective on leadership focuses on the followers, since essentially, a leader would not exist without them. Nonetheless, it is widely accepted that the bulk of the studies on this matter focuses on the first theme. Studies which are oriented from the grass-roots (or the followership) are considered to be a late development in the field of management (Uhl-Bien, Riggio, Lowe, & Carsten, 2014). Following from this, the author of this study would conduct a detailed analysis of the different principles espoused by these two different sets of approaches. To start with, the next section would be dedicated to the general analysis of the different theories established by the more traditional approach of the leadership framework. In the succeeding section, the focus would then be shifted towards the more recent advancement, which is that on followership. Specifically for this section, we would expound on the ideas purported by Uhl-Bien, Riggio, Lowe, and Carsten (2014), where they suggest two theoretical frameworks for the study of followership, namely (1) Role-based approach and (2) Constructionist approach. After these detailed analyses of the two principles, the author would then provide a quick synthesis of the two chapters to understand the possible usages of these frameworks as well as the difficulties that it presents. Nevertheless, in light of all of this, the author of this paper strongly believes that understanding both of these perspectives are crucial for the successful development of leaders today.
Leadership Theories
Based on the current existing literature on our first perspective, there exist eight major theories, when it comes to analyzing leadership. Namely, these eight are (1) The “Great Man” theory, (2) Trait theory, (3) Contingency theory, (4) Situational theory, (5) Behavioral theory, (6) Participative theory, (7) Management theory, and the (8) Relationship theory. In general, these theories are primarily designed to distinguish the qualities that makes an individual a a leader? In the past theories, however, these characteristics are mainly believed to be “in-born” whereas more recent studies suggested that aside from the innate personality traits that individuals are born with, certain circumstances could still have a significant effect (Cherry, 2017). In order to have a clearer grasp of these theories, each of the sides, supporting and against, of these theories would be discussed below.
The Great Man Theory
Popularized by Thomas Carlyle, the Great Man theory is one of the most popular theory of leadership that was conceived in the mid-19th century (Gardner, 1993). In summary, it embraces that some people are simply “born to lead”, thus suggesting the idea that all the great men in history as well as those which would be part of them in the future, has an innate set of characteristics, which sets them apart from the others. Some of these innate characteristics include “charisma, confidence, intelligence, and social skills” among a multitude of other favorable characteristics (Cherry, 2017). However, while this theory provides a superficially undisputable observation on the characteristics of leaders, its opponents argued that its flaw lies in its assumption that people are born with innate qualities, which then sparks up the age-old debate about “nature vs nurture”. One example of opponents who favored the nurture side, was Herbert Spencer a proficient advocate of the evolutionary theory. According to him, “these heroes are simply the product of their times and their actions the results of social conditions” (LeadershipCentral.com, 2010).
Trait Theory
The Trait Theory is very similar with its predecessor, the Great Man theory, in that it also views that “leaders are born, not made”. However, the only difference is that while the Great Man theory, focuses on an analysis of “already leaders”, the Trait theory starts with the set of traits which differentiates born leaders from the rest. Particularly, traits like extroversion, self-confidence, and courage. However, the pitfall of this theory is that there are plenty of people who possess the skill sets and traits necessary for leadership, but they are neither leaders nor seekers of these role (Cherry, 2017). This then, posits other theories which focuses not only on the inherent characteristics of people, but also on the external circumstances that allows them and/or motivates them to leading a group of people.
Contingency Theory
In line with the gaps stated above, the Contingency Theory forwarded a more balanced “nurture-nature” perspective on the matter. Particularly, this theory posits the idea that different individuals have a different leadership style, and in order to become leaders, a balance between the needs of the situation as well as the particular leadership style should match (LeadershipCentral.com, 2010). In other words, this opposes the ideas of the two previous theories and increases its inclusion to individuals whether they have the characteristics purported by the Trait theory or not. One of the biggest example of the contingency theory these days were Mark Zuckerberg and Bill Gates. These people are part of the richest person in the world, and have even become leaders of their own multi-billion dollar corporations. However, they were able to do so despite their inherent characteristics of being “shy and introverted” (Cole, 2014).
Situational Theory
As compared to the previous theories, the situational theory (aka the Hersey-Blanchard Situational Leadership Theory) focuses on determining the styles the current leaders should do, instead of whether leaders are born or made. Specifically, this theory states that in order to be effective, a leader must be able to adapt his leadership style to the needs of his organization. Thus, if he/she has the best knowledge of the operations, then a more “authoritative style” is needed, as compared to a “democratic” one required when working with more seasoned veterans (Cherry, 2017).
One of the main importance of the Situational theory of leadership today, is that it is still being used by many corporations, for its flexibility to many situations as it provides clear-cut guidelines on how to do so. This is done through models (SLI and SLII models) which designates four different leadership styles (S1, S2, S3, and S4) with four different Maturity Levels in the company (M1, M2, M3, and M4).
Behavioral Theory
This theory is the direct opposite of the Great Man theory, which relies on nature. Thus, proponents of this perspective believes that “Great Leaders are made, not born”, positing the idea that culture, the external environment, and the people around an individual leads to the development of leader-like qualities, instead of simply having them at birth (Cherry, 2017). However, while this might be the case, one of the biggest flaws of this theory is that is that it negates the nature side of the equation (just like the Great Man theory). Thus, this could easily be disproven given that recent studies on temperament and genetic inheritance of certain characteristics happen biologically.
Participative Theory
In the participative theory, the effectivity of a leader is believed to be in his ability to encourage the participation of the group in discussing the matter at hand. This top-down solution believes that the participation of the most number of those affected feasible, the best solutions could be obtained with respect to the ideals of the many and the needs of the situation (Grimsley, n.d.). These days, the principles of the participative theory are utilized by most companie...