Traits Theory Of Leadership Management Essay

Traits Theory Of Leadership Management Essay Early research by Burns (1978) concluded that leadership is one of the most observed and least understood phenomena on earth (Burns, 1978). To enhance our understanding of leadership this chapter will critically review the early theories of leadership to current leadership research on transformational and transactional leadership style. It will also discuss how the current findings on leadership are likely to impact the commitment of members in National Union of Bank Employees (NUBE). 2.0 Leadership Leadership has become a hot topic with a burgeoning but fragmented literature in the past few years that draws on both the arts and the sciences. So far there is no agreed paradigm for the study and practice of leadership. The concept of leadership has seized the attention and concern of many researchers in the field of management, psychology, sociology, anthropology, and others in the last century. Such a concern is due to the important roles leaders play in facilitating organizational effectiveness and performance through their behaviors or styles they exhibit and competencies they posses. Indeed, in this context, one measure organizational effectiveness is members commitment (Meyer et al., 2002). It is the contention that the present study is conducted to determine how leadership style affects commitment amongst employees at work. So, what is leadership? The concept of leadership has been defined differently by scholars in terms of the emphasis on leaders traits, influence, competencies, individual vs., and group orientation and cognitive vs. emotional orientations. Burns (1978) defines leadership as a mobilization process by individuals with certain motives, values and access to resources in a context of competition and conflict in the pursuit of goals. More recently, Nigel Nicholson speaks of leadership as either a position or a process (Bradshaw, 2002). If a process, he says, it is about influencing other people, and this requires knowing oneself, knowing those other people, and knowing how to influence them. In order to understand how leadership is conceptualized, it is necessary to look at the leadership styles and variety of leadership theories developed, as follows. Traits Theory of Leadership Trait theories on leadership started in the twentieth century and formal theories on leadership were given by sociologists, experts in human behavior and psychologists. The researchers from 1920s to 1960s focused on the personality of leader and tried to find some traits as the basic of successful leadership (Adair, 1984). Frederick Taylor (1856-1915) cultivated the theory of leadership for the first time for leading in the formal organizations. His basic idea was to increase output by using scientific parameter. According to Bass (1990), successful leadership is determined by factors classified into six groups: achievement, responsibility, capacity, participation and situation. He also claimed that leaders are born but no made. The main assumptions of trait theory are the (a) the common features that characterize are considered as the criteria to define the suitability and successfulness of leadership; (b) an effective leader inherits and learns his/her traits, and (c) leaders are born and not made. To test the traits theory, Gordon (1987) carried out a study to define the relationship between characteristics of personality and leadership. He found a significant relationship between the ability of taking responsibility and leadership. He further found a weak but positive relationship between intelligence, authority and intelligence, and leadership. In a different study to illustrate the differences between leaders and non-leaders in terms of their personalities and traits, Beer et al. (1990) found that leaders were identified as being serious, self-dependent, confident of their competencies, best decision makers, and reasonable in expressing thoughts. They also revealed that leaders are characterized by being able to take responsibility, are self motivated, more persuasive, more capable in influencing others, more energetic, and more diplomatic. Stogdill (1974) carried out a survey of the factorial studies between 1945 and 1970 to define the main features of a leader. He found that leadership traits are defined into six main types: corporal traits, social background, intelligence, capability, personality traits, relevant to task, and social features. The results also showed that an effective leader has skills such as social and personality skills, technical skills, managerial skills, intellectual skills, friendship-achievements skills, being supportive for team work, and being defensive towards work. Situational Theories of Leadership Situational theories appeared as a reaction to the trait theory of leadership. Situational Leadership Theory Ability level of the officer High 5 4 3 2 1 Delegating Supporting Coaching Directing Willingness level of the officer Low High Low 1 2 3 4 5 The Situational Leadership Theory suggests that effective leadership requires both acts of leadership and management. Depending on the level of each of these acts necessary, four different styles of leadership can be utilized. These are delegating, coaching, directing, and supporting. For a leader to be purposeful in their direction, they must use the correct style by being able to evaluate a followers readiness level. In other words, they must meet a follower where they are. Fiedler Contingency Model Functional theory 2.3 Early Description of Relation- Oriented and Task-Oriented Leadership Behavior The study of leadership has an important place in the study of management and organization behavior for several decades. There is no other role in organization has been focused more interest than the leader (SchwandtMarquardt, 2000). The early study of leadership behavior separate those behaviors into relation-oriented and task oriented leadership. Relations-oriented leadership focuses on the quality of the relationship with followers, whereas task oriented leadership focus on the task to be accomplished by followers (Bass, 1990). Researchers have used various terms to describe relations-oriented and task oriented leadership behaviors. Bass (1990) provides an overview of terms used by several researchers. For example, descriptions of relations-oriented leadership behaviors have included participatory decision making (Ouchi, 1981), supportive (Bowers Seashore,1966), concern for people (Blake Mouton,1964), emphasizing employee needs(Fleishman,1957), people centered (Anderson,1974) and leadership (Zaleznik,1977). For both types of leadership behaviors, the most recent descriptions came from Bass Avolio (1995, 1997). They describe relations-oriented behaviors as Idealized Influence (attributed), Idealized Influence (behavior), Individualized Consideration, Intellectual Stimulation and Inspirational Motivation. Their task-oriented description include contingent reward, management-by-exception (active) and management-by-exception (passive) Burns (1978) comprehensive theory formed the foundation for Basss (1985) transformational-transactional differentiation which has become considerable importance in the study of leadership in organization. 2.4 Transactional and Transformational Leadership Leadership style is defined as a pattern of emphases, indexed by the frequency or intensity of specific leadership behaviors or attitudes, which a leader places on the different leadership functions (Casimir, 2001). Theorists have come up with various leadership styles, namely autocratic leadership, transactional leadership, transformational leadership, and servant leadership. Some have been widely studied of by researchers and their effects on organizations have been established. Transformational leadership is one of the leadership styles that have been studied and its relationships with various elements in management have been established. Transformational leadership is a style of leadership whereby a leader can motivate a subordinate to perform above and beyond what he or she had previously believed possible (Bass, 1985). A study performed by Parry (2003) in public sector organizations found that transformational leadership style has a positive effect on the innovation and effectiveness of these organizations. According to Bass Avolio(1995), transactional leadership refers to an influence process to exchange valued rewards for performance. Thus, transactional leadership embraces based exchange relationship. The leader promotes uniformity by providing extrinsic (positive or negative) reward to the collaborators (Cardona, 2000). Transactional leadership encompasses fairly traditional managerial styles where managers or leaders gain compliance and performance by either offering rewards or punishing deviations from standards. This is the pattern of leadership prevalent in most organizations and organizational situations because it contains a basic mechanism of exchange relations which becomes possible when there is no outstanding sense of impeding threat or anxiety. Bass (1985) conceptualized transformational leaders as unique motivators who encourage follower to go beyond their believed capabilities in pursuit of a shared, common goal. Transformational leaders are concerned about efficiency and the achievement of organization goal. They do so with a focus in supporting staff emotionally and intellectually. Basss initial views, characterized transformational leadership as the ability to elicit support and participation from followers through personal qualities. The significance of transactional and transformational leadership has been elaborated in the Full Range of Leadership Model (Avolio and Bass,1991) 2.5 The Full Range Leadership Model The full range leadership model is probably the most validated leadership model in use world-wide today. The originality of the full range leadership (FRL) model lies in the concept of a range of leadership behaviors which all leaders demonstrate. This model required a change for a balanced leadership behavior whereby moves away from the more transactional leadership towards the transformational leadership style. Bass (1999) was the one of the researcher to argue for a transformational style of leadership to transactional forms. Scholars have studied the full range leadership model (FRL) as a predictor of a variety of outcomes in organizations such as employees commitment, employee satisfaction, motivation, organizational effectiveness and performance. (Base and Stogdill, 1990; Barbuto et al., 2007) The Full Range Model describes three main types of leadership behavior to transformational behavior ranging from completely inactive (laissez-faire) to transactional behaviors to transformational behaviors. Thus, transactional and transformational leadership are seen to be in a continuum rather than being mutually exclusive (Yammarino, 1993; Bass and Avolio, 1994). According to Base and Avolio(1995) Laissez-faire is non leadership behaviors that imply the leaders indifference towards both followers actions and organizational outcomes, as well as demonstrating an attitude of abdicating responsibility (to make decisions, or address important issues). The laissez-faire leader, who is also referred to as non transactional is characterized by a relative lack of concern for his subordinates (Bass and Riggio, 2006). The Full Range Leadership (FRL) Model consists of three transactional leader characteristics. Contingent Reward Contingent reward is the classical transactional leadership style. Here the leader sets very clear goals, objectives and targets and clarifies, either openly or by inference, what rewards can be expected for successful completion. Contingent reward leaders are found to be reasonably effective, although not as much as the five Is in transformational leadership for motivating others to achieve higher levels of performance. These leaders assign agreements on what needs to be done and promise rewards or actually reward followers for satisfactory carrying out the assignment. Management by Exception (passive) Management by exception (passive) refers to the process of paying attention to the exceptional rather than the normal. Thus management by exception leaders tend to be relatively laissez-faire under normal circumstances but take action when problem occur, mistakes are made or deviation from standards are apparent. Leaders wait passively for deviances and errors to occur and then take corrective action (Avolio and Bass,1991) Management by Exception (active) Management by exception (active) leaders is found to be less effective than contingent reward leaders but is still required in certain situations. They arrange to actively to actively monitor deviances from standards, mistakes and errors in the followers assignments and to take corrective action as necessary. The leader pays very close attention to any problem or deviations and has extensive and accurate monitoring and control system to provide early warnings of such problems. In the Full Range Leadership (FRL) Model, Bass (1998) divided transformational leadership into four scales. Idealized Influence Idealized Influence is often associated with charismatic leadership (e.g Shamir et.al., 1993; Yulk,1999). Leaders portraying idealized influence attributes have the socialized charisma (Avolio and Bass, 2002). They are perceived as being confident and powerful, and viewed as focusing on higher-order ideals and ethics. Such leaders are often seen as being high on morality, trust, integrity, honesty and purpose. House and Shamir (1993) have said that charismatic leaders demonstrate determination, optimism, and confidence in them to accomplish the mission and realize the vision. For example, Dr Martin Luther King inspired people through his oratorical skills in the face of unpromising resistance. Leaders who exert idealized influence behave in ways that demonstrate high standards of ethical and moral conduct (Bass, 1998). Idealized influence is behavior that encourages followers to use their leaders role model. Inspirational Motivation Inspirational Motivation involves communicating the vision to followers, fostering follower identification with the vision, focusing follower efforts, arousing their self awareness of higher goals and motivations and sustaining positive emotional arousal and identification with these goals (Bans, 1990).Inspirational motivation leaders motivate and inspire followers by providing meaning and challenge to work. These leaders engage followers in envisioning attractive future states and created communicated expectations that followers want to meet. Intellectual Stimulation Intellectual stimulation essentially involves the leader stimulating the follower to think through issues and problems for themselves and thus to develop their own abilities. This leadership approach reflects in large measure the coaching, morale building strengths of individualized consideration. Leaders stimulate followers effort to be innovative and creative by questioning assumptions, reframing problems and approaching old situations in new ways. New ideas and creativity problem solutions are solicited from followers who are included in the process of addressing problems and finding solutions. Individualized Consideration Individualized consideration includes mentoring, coaching, continuous feedback, and linking the individuals current needs to the organizations mission (Bass, 1990).leaders pay special attention to the needs of each individual follower for achievement and growth. Leaders who use this style of leadership show consideration for their workers need and are prepared to encourage and coach the development of appropriate workplace behavior. Individualized consideration leaders pay special attention to the needs of each individual follower for achievement and growth. Followers are developed to successively higher level of potential (Fukushige and Spicer, 2007) In the Full Range Leadership (FRL) Model, the transformational leader follower relationship is viewed as one of mutual stimulation (Barbuto, 1997). The influence of transformational leaders was distinguished on the hierarchical scale of moral development measured by Kohlbergs conceptualization (Popper et, al., 2002). This in more study also reports transformational leaders are classified as more morally advanced than transactional leaders. Figure 1: Full Range Leadership Model 1 PASSIVE ACTIVE Effective Transactional Laissez-faire Laissez-faire Transformational Leadership Management Figure 2: Full Range Leadership Model 2 Increase impact on commitment Laissez-faire Management-by-exception Contingent Reward Intellectual Stimulation Inspirational Motivation Idealized Influence Individualized consideration McGuire and Kennerly (2006) identifies the relationship between organizational leadership and members commitment in the literature since 1950s. McGuire and Kennerly states that transactional and transformational leadership style provides a framework for interaction that might affect the employees relationship, commitment, and work environment. The leadership style adopted by the leaders of National Union of Bank Employees(NUBE) will influence all the activities of union.(Naude and McCabe,2005). According to Bass (1990), transformational leaders demonstrated the four characteristics of idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation and individualized consideration. Transformational leaders inspired others to improve performance, satisfied and achieved outcomes beyond expectations. McGuire and Kennerly (2006) reported increased loyalty, organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and morale with transformational leaders compared with limited levels of job satisfaction and lower levels of organizational commitment with transactional leadership. Many studies involving the broad categories of transformational and transactional leadership behaviors, as well as specific behaviors within those categories have demonstrated that these behavior impact both individual and organizational effectiveness. Organizational commitment is a construct that explores effectiveness outcomes in similar areas. 2.6 Organizational Commitment Organizational commitment plays an important role in the study leadership. This is in part due to the number of works that have found relationships between organizational commitment and attitudes and behaviors in the workplace (Porter et al, 1974, Angle and Perry, 1981). Organizational commitment has linked to leadership behaviors that are relations-oriented and task-oriented. DeCotiisSummers(1987) found that when employees were treated with consideration they show greater level of commitment. Jermier Berkes (1979) discovered that employees who participate in decision making had higher levels of commitment to the organization. Organizational commitment provides a broad measure of the effectiveness of leadership behaviors. This relationship offers a way to further explore the subject of leadership. Bycio, Hackett, Allen (1995) reported positive correlations between the leadership behaviors of charisma, intellectual stimulation, individualized consideration, and contingent reward and affective, continuance and normative commitment. Studies suggest that committed workers contribute to the organization in more positive ways (Meyer and Allen,1997). 2.6.1 Definition of Commitment Organizational commitment has been defined differently by different scholars depending on their background. Multiple definitions of organizational commitment are found in the literature. However, Mowday et al (1979) defines organizational commitment as the relative strength of the identification of the individual and his involvement in his particular organization. According to this definition, organizational commitment has three basic components: A strong belief in and acceptance of the organizational goals and values(identification) A willingness to exert a considerable effort on behalf of the organization(involvement) A strong desire to remain with the organization. Sheldon (1971) defined commitment as being a positive evaluation of the organization and the organizational goals. According to Buchanan (1974) most scholars define commitment as being a bond between an individual (the employee) and the organization (the employer). In explaining the significance of organizational commitment, Bateman and Strasser(1984) state that the purpose of studying organizational commitment are related to (a) employees behavior and performance effectiveness, (b) attitudinal, affective and cognitive constructs such as job satisfaction, (c) characteristics of the employees job task, such as responsibility and (d) personal characteristics of the employee such as level of education. Commitment involves a willingness to exert considerable effort on behalf of the organization and acceptance of the values and goals of the organization (Ingersoll et al., 2000). Organizational commitment is influenced by such factors as individuals and organizational characteristics (Angle and Perry, 1983). For example organizational members continued commitment towards an organization could be influenced by such factors as benefits, status, monetary and interpersonal rewards. 2.6.2 Three Types of Organizational Commitment Meyer and Allen (1991) and Dunham et al (1994) identified three types of commitment; affective commitment, continuance commitment, and normative commitment. The differences between these three types of commitment reflect the psychological state that binds the individual to the organization. They argued that the affective component is determined by work experiences relating to the job of the person and structural characteristics. Continuance is determined by the magnitude and number of investments that have been made in the current organization and the number of perceived alternatives. Lastly, the normative component is determined by an individuals experiences prior to entry and during employment in the organization in terms of familial, cultural and organizational socialization. Affective commitment is defined as the emotional attachment, identification, and involvement that an employee has with its organization and goals (Mowday et al., 1997, Meyer Allen, 1993). They further state that affective communication is when the employee identifies with a particular organization and its goals in order to maintain membership to facilitate the goal. Meyer and Allen (1997) continue to say that employees retain membership out of choice and this is their commitment to the organization. Continuance commitment is the willingness to remain in an organization because of the investment that the employee has with nontransferable investments. Nontransferable include things such as retirement, relationship with other employees, or things that are special to the organization (Reichers, 1985). Continuance commitment t also includes factors such as years of employment or benefits that the employee may receive that are unique to the organization (Reichers, 1985). Meyer and Allen (1997) further explain that employees who share continuance commitment with their employer often make it very difficult for an employee to leave the organization. Normative Commitment (Bolon, 1993) is the commitment that a person believes that they have to the organization or their feeling of obligation to their workplace. In 1982, Weiner discusses normative commitment as being a generalized value of loyalty and duty. Meyer and Allen (1991) supported this type of commitment prior to Bolons definition, with their definition of normative commitment being a feeling of obligation. Normative commitment can be explained by other commitments such as marriage, family, religion, and etc. Therefore when it comes to ones commitment to their place of employment they often feel like they have a moral obligation to the organization (Wiener, 1982). In arguing for their framework, Meyer Allen (1991) contended that affective, continuance, and normative commitment were components rather than types because employees could have varying degree of all three. For example, one employee might feel both a strong attachment to an organization and a sense of obligation to remain. A second employee might enjoy working for the organization but also recognize that leaving would be very difficult from an economic standpoint. Finally, a third employee might experience a considerable degree of desire, need and obligation to remain with the current employer (Meyer Allen, 1997). Even though the authors present this argument, they do not imply that there is a rationale for summing all the scales to obtain an overall score for organizational commitment. 2.6 Previous Studies Ooi Chai Liang(2002) has conducted a research to identify whether there is a significant relationship between transformational leadership style and commitment in the organization. Research sample consist of 35 employees under the supervision of supervisors in Hotel Mercure Ace,Johor Bharu. Results from this research have proven that when situational factor is taken into consideration, motivation does not show significant effect on the relationship between transformational leadership and commitment in the organization. Whereas, situational motivation factor act as a predictor to the commitment in the organization. Research result also shows that there is no significant relationship between transformational leadership and commitment in the organization. Tan Bee Hong (2000) has conduct a research to identify the relationship between transformational and transactional leadership style with job performance. Research sample consist of 282 employees of blue collar in Technocom System Sdn Bhd(TSSB), Johor Bahru. Statistical technique such as Pearson Correlation Analysis used to determine the relationship between transformational and transactional leadership style with job performance. Research result shows that there is a significant relationship between dimensions of transformational and transactional leadership style with job performance. Wee Kok Cheng (2000) carried out research to identify the relationship between transformational and transactional leadership with job satisfaction. The researcher has concluded that transformational leadership style show a greater relationship with job satisfaction compared to transactional leadership. The study has been conducted on 45 respondents who are nurses and assistant nurses. The purpose of the study is to identify the leadership styles and job satisfaction of nurses in the department of Hospital Daerah Mersing, Johor Bahru. Research result shows that there is a positive relationship between transformational and transactional leadership style with job satisfaction. There were two dimensions of transformational leadership (Idealized Influence and Intellectual Stimulation) which shows the highest significant relationship with job satisfaction. Othaman Mohd Yunus(1994) has conduct a research to study the effect of transformational and transactional leadership between organizational culture and inspiration of a police and job performance and work stress among Polis Diraja Malaysia. Findings of the study shows, in certain situation dimensions of transformational and transactional leadership style plays a moderate role especially in the relationship of PDRM cultures with performance and work stress. Liong (1990) has carried out research to identify the validity of the transformational leadership in a sample of principles and teachers who were selected from 90 secondary schools in Singapore. According to the researcher, principals and teachers who adopt the characteristics of transformational leadership shows high level of job satisfaction and commitment towards schools. Effectiveness of leadership is manifested indirectly through measuring the effectiveness of schools such as higher academic achievement in public examination and success in the field of curriculum. Wiener Vardi(1980) states the impact that organizational commitment had on commitment to the job and career commitment. Their respondents were 56 insurance agents and 85 professional staffs. The researcher reported positive relationship between organizational commitment and the other two types of commitment. In nine studies involving 2734 people, Dunham, Grube Castaneda (1994) examined how participatory management and supervisory feedback influenced employee level of commitment. The researcher founds found that when supervisors provided feedback about performance and allowed employees to participate in decision making, employee levels of affective commitment was stronger than both continuance and normative commitment. It indicated employees staying with the organization were more related to wanting to, rather than needing to or feeling they ought to. In the study of 238 nurses, Cohen (1996) investigated the relationship between affective, continuance and normative commitment and the following other types of commitment: work involvement, job involvement, and career commitment. Findings revealed that affective commitment was more highly correlated with all the other types of commitment. In other words, exhibit higher levels of commitment to their work, their job and their career. Irving, Coleman,Cooper(1997) investigated the relationship between affective, continuance, and normative commitment and the outcome measures of job satisfaction and turnover intervention. Total participants for the study included 232 employees. Results revealed that job satisfaction was positively related to both affective and normative commitment. However, job satisfaction was negatively related to continuance commitment. All three types of commitment were negatively related to turnover intentions, with continuance commitment having the strongest negative relationship. . 2.2 Leadership Styles(Intro)chap 1 Grint (2000) has underscored that a clear understanding of leadership requires an historical approach. He stresses that a particular leadership style during a process of change is time based and that every period has room for a limited palette of leadership qualities (Velde, 2002). A style organizes the pragmatic activity of a leader, indicates how his actions are coordinated and how things and people that matter are determined and changed (Spinosa et al., 2001). It has been argued that organizations beliefs, values and assumptions are of critical importance to the overall style of leadership that they adopt (Bunmi, 2007). Leadership style is the behavior pattern used by leader to resolve the organizational issues. There are several different leadership styles that can be identified in various leaders.