Behavior Leadership Theory

What re each(prenominal)y makes a good leader? Psychologist and managers try to answer this question. Chronologi call iny, the first answer to what makes a good leader was that leadership are not made, they are born (Fairholm, 1991). This was the first guess of leadership, the heavy(p) Men hypothesis. Many new(prenominal) theories were divided by Fairholm and these are the avocation theories establish on who the leader is, wherein this group focuses on the leaders characteristic theories based on what the leader does, wherein the behavior hypothesis give way to this group.It is focused on studying leaders behavior so that it croup be reproduced by accomplices and the theories based on the Environment of the leaders. Leadership is a difficult topic to study because leadership is a haired concept. For decades, social scientists and practitioners have been struggling to come up with the ultimate rendering of leadership, to explain its mechanisms, and to draw the line betwe en leadership and focusing. They have produced a number of definitions and theories.Long time ago, determinants of leadership has been identified by behavioural theorists, so that hatful could be trained to be leaders. Since the best styles of leadership coffin nail be learned, training programs have been developed to change managers leadership behaviors. During the realism War II, the leaders of the academy left the islet of Traits and set barter for the Isle of manners by the 1940s. They suspected that the X and Y theory of Leadership of Myers or Briggs, was somewhat kind of fraud. The military wanted to know if leaders could be trained, and if so, what behaviors made them most effective.The Academy of Leader Professors wanting to fill tenure, fame in time of world crisis, and fortune decided that some sore theory of leadership must be found or all their jobs would be as extinct as dinosaurs. Working with the Army and with universities, two biggest paginate2 bureaucrac ies in the world, it was mostly about transactional behavior, cosmos magisterial or democratic to increase the transaction rate or quality. The feisty of life in organizations was never to be transformed and their quest was to palpate universal leader behavior styles that correlate with effectiveness and are best transactions in all situations.Squire Fleishman and Sir Katz set off for the Isle of demeanour in separate ships as they are desperate to establish a behavioural settlement, just now found out that Scribe Lewin had already open up a behavioral settlement and an Iowa University since 1938. On the Isle of Behaviors, leader (transactional) behaviors became plain and their study turned objective and measurable. Different Universities wanted to make its specialize and study what do leaders do by using some statistical methods, then the Ohio produce and Michigan University competed for the education of the peasants.Fleishman became King of Ohio State and Katz was made King of Michigan University. Lewin was already King at Iowa. all(prenominal) mustered their armies and prepared to battle for leader behavior territory. Sir Mintzberg, knighted by the Canadians, resettled in the Isle of Behavior and decided to go and look to see if leaders did any planning, organizing, witnessling, or leading. He actually observed and recorded the supercharge what transactions that leaders do. The world was shocked to discover, that leaders had a hectic, frantic, and separate transaction life, and did little of the behaviors thought to take place.Some leaders were only figureheads, but he did confirm Sir Mertons beguile, but noting all the voices that leaders do. While the Isle of Behavior was oversupplied with two-factor studies of behavior and observations of roles here and everywhere, that broad explored, Prince Yukl decided that process was more(prenominal) important than some list of universal behaviors. And by 2001, Prince Page3 Howell and Knight Costl ey joined the search for process. They still liked to isolate and whole tone behaviors, but wanted to do this in the study of processes. They made great maps of the world of leadership, charting each territory.Leaders were reduced from traits or greatness to just psychoalgebraic behavioral equations, to styles or just transactions. But alas most of the Leader Behavior Academy had already set sail for the Isle of Situation. It seemed obvious that Traits and Behaviors to be effective depended upon the Situation. If there were universal behaviors, they are not optimal in all situations. Therefore a great expedition set forward to the Isle of Situation in the 1960s, with new waves of migration each decade since. This is where the humanities of transformation were rekindled. The behavior of Leadership has two main theories, transaction and transformation.This is what we call the X dimension of behavior leadership theory. It is the X dimension that focuses on the Behavioral School of l eadership. The X dimension runs from Transactional to transformational leadership, as studied by ruin (1978) and Bass (1985). This is a classic dualism in leadership studies. Burns looked at modal thinking (the means over ends reasoning) in the proto(prenominal) stages of development and held that the leaders are transactional in their behaviors. Transactional leadership requires a perspicacious eye for opportunity, a good hand at bargaining, persuading, reciprocating (Burns, 1978169).A transformational leader, on the otherwise hand, recognizes and exploits an existing compulsion or demand of a potential follower and looks for potential motives in followers, seeks to satisfy higher needs, and engages the full person of the follower. lastly transformational leaders were thought to engage in behaviors that Page4 changed the game, eve changed the world. Douglas McGregor described system X and Y in his book, The Human gradient of Enterprise, that X and Y theory each represent un like shipway in which leaders view employees. possible action X managers believe that employees are move mainly by money, are lazy, uncooperative, and have poor work habits. surmisal Y managers believe that subordinates work hard, are cooperative, and have positive attitudes. Theory X is the traditional view of direction and control by managers. The just human existence has an inherent dislike of work and will debar if he or she poop. Because of this human characteristic of dislike of work, most slew must be controlled, directed, and threatened with punishment to get them to put onwards adequate effort toward the achievement of organisational objectives.The come human being prefers to be directed, wishes to avoid responsibility, has comparatively little ambition, wants security above all. This theory leads natively to an emphasis on the tactics of control to procedures and techniques for telling people what to do, for determining whether they are doing it, and for admini stering rewards and punishment. Theory X explains the consequences of a particular managerial strategy. Because its assumptions are so unnecessarily limiting, it prevents managers from seeing the possibilities inherent in other managerial strategies.As long as the assumptions of Theory X influence managerial strategy, organizations will fail to discover, let alone utilize, the potentialities of the average human being. Theory Y is the view that individual and organizational goals can be integrated. The expenditures of somatogenic and mental effort in work are as natural as p unload or rest. Page5 External control and the threat of punishment are not the only means for bring out effort toward organizational objectives. Commitment to objectives is a function of the rewards associated with their achievement.The average human being learns, under proper conditions, not only to don but also to seek responsibility. The capacity to exercise a relatively high degree of imagination, ingenu ity, and creativity in the solution of organizational problems in widely, not narrowly, distributed in the population. Under the condition of modern industrial life, the cerebral potentialities of the average human being are only partially utilized. Theory Ys purpose is to encourage integration, to create a situation in which an employee can achieve his or her own goals best by directing his or her efforts toward the objectives of the organization.It is a deliberate attempt to link improvement in managerial competence with the satisfaction of higher-level ego and self-actualization needs. Theory Y leads to a immersion with the nature of relationships, with the creation of an environment which will encourage commitment to organizational objectives and which will provide opportunities for the maximum exercise of initiative, ingenuity, and self-direction in achieving them. detect that with Theory Y assumptions, managements role is to develop the potential in employees and help them to release that potential towards common goals.Theory X is the view that traditional management has taken towards the workforce. Many organizations are now winning the enlightened view of theory Y. A boss can be viewed as taking the theory X approach, while a leader takes the theory Y approach. Notice that Maslow, Herzberg, and McGreagors theories all tie together Herzbergs theory is a small version of Maslows theory (concentrated in the work place). McGreagors Theory X is based on workers Page6 caught in the lower levels (1 to 3) of Maslows theory, while his Theory Y is for workers who have gone above level 3.McGreagors Theory X is based on workers caught in Herbergs Hygiene Dissatisfiers, while Theory Y is based on workers who are in the Motivators or Satisfiers section. Whatever theory applied by any organization , the greatest chance of being successful is when all of the employees work toward achieving its goals. Since leadership involves the exercise of influence by one pers on over others, the quality of leadership is a unfavorable determinant of organizational success. Thus, leaders study leadership in request to influence the actions of his followers toward the achievement of the goals of the organization.Leadership studies can be classified as trait, behavioral, contingency, and transformational. Earliest theories assumed that the primary source of leadership effectiveness lay in the personal traits of the leaders themselves. Yet, traits alone cannot explain leadership effectiveness. Thus, afterward research focused on what the leader actually did when dealing with employees. These behavioral theories of leadership sought to explain the relationship between what the leader did and how the employees reacted, some(prenominal) emotionally and behaviorally. Yet, behavior cant always account for leadership in variant situations.Thus, contingency theories of leadership studied leadership style in different environments. Transactional leaders, such as those identified in contingency theories, clarify role and task requirements for employees. Yet, contingency cant account for the inspiration and innovation that leaders need to compete in todays global marketplace. Newer transformational leadership studies have shown that leaders, who are magnetized and visionary, can inspire followers to transcend their own self-interest for Page7 the good of the organization.