Juvenalis Kisia
A lot of resources have been put into research on leadership and leadership qualities of several great men in the history of man. Most of this research is aimed at establishing what these great men were made of and whether their character traits could be documented with a purpose of being adopted by leaders and potential leaders in contemporary times. Theories have, as a result, been developed to capture the different aspects that make different leaders. These theories, from various research efforts, were defined on the basis of assumptions that make and/or nurture a particular leader; Great Man theory, Trait theory, Behavioral theory, Participative leadership, Situational leadership, Contingency leadership, Transactional leadership and Transformational leadership theories.
The Great Man leadership theory was founded by Thomas Carlyle, a Scottish philosopher in the Victorian era notably known for his book On Heroes, Heroes Worship and The Heroic in History from whence the great man theory was coined. The theory was mainly based on assumptions that leaders were born and/or would arise when there was a great need; for instance, Jesus Christ was born to lead people of God and Moses appeared just in time to save the Israelites from extended oppression. According to him, leaders had a mythical element that made them as such and allowed people to be drawn to their enlightenment. This theory, however, speaks only of great leaders in history and specifically, the male gender: there is no exploration of The Great Woman.
The Trait theory was researched on by scholars such as Melvin Ralph who was of the opinion that leaders were born with inherent combination leadership traits. However, in the late 1940s, it was deemed by other researchers as insufficient way to gauge a potential leader. This research was based on existing leaders unlike Great Man theory that was based on past leaders. It also gave room to a notion that if these traits were found in a person, then they could effectively be great leaders too.
Behavioral theory was based on the notion that leaders can be made and being a successful leader was a fete that could be overcome through a learning process. This was a much more dynamic theory that was open to the fact that the leadership arena was not something fixed but rather adaptable to change through learning. For Instance Malcolm X was a common American citizen until he became a leader still recognized by most people today and that is a fact. This could only have been possible because he was nurtured and taught in the ways of leadership; he was taught such skills by Elijah Mohammad.
Transformational theory speaks of charismatic leaders that share a common trait of charisma and vision to change what is to what could be. They are positive thinkers who are optimistic in every situation and always find ways to rally people together to achieve certain goals. However, not all of them share the charismatic trait. Leaders such as Warren Buffet and Mark Zukerberg have transformed peoples’ lives for the better for instance Mark brought about a revolution in social interaction with Facebook, however, he is shy loner who is uncomfortable in public.
Transactional leadership theory, just as its name suggest, consist of reward and punishment based on how the leader performs. It is mostly used in formal setting for instance in large companies where power is given to the CEO to lead; if however they fail then they lose the job but if they succeed they are rewarded by salary and benefits. This is especially true of most formal setting of employment.
Situational theory explore leader who are dynamic given the situation. These leaders are highly adaptable to situations and are loyal to those who follow and not the objectives at hand. Such leader are the political leaders for example in a democratic environment like the United States, a leader will speak against abortion especially if the hold a powerful position like the presidency if the people they lead prefer otherwise. The opinion of the president on such issue is of little consequence.
Participative theory of leadership explores a case where the decision is made jointly rather than falling in the exclusive domain of the leader. In this theory of leadership, the leader listens to contributions from everyone else and a common decision by the majority is arrived at. In such cases the leader cannot impose a decision on the rest but rather sell his/her ideas in order to bring all other aboard. In South Africa, for instance, Nelson Mandela brought about peace and unity by leading the people together by allowing all races in the decision making on the best way forward.
In my opinion the Great man, Trait theories all operate from a fixed stand-point that clearly demarcate who is a leader is and who is not based on its assumptions: which in contemporary time does not hold true given that Mark Zukerberg is a leader despite the fact that he is mostly uncomfortable in front of the public. The Transactional theory is quite dynamic and with a clearly set path of direction for the leader until someone much more interested in the monetary reward comes along: his/her goals will make them unpredictable. Similarly, the Situational theory will have to be very dynamic to choose a leader suited for every kind of situation that crops up; which may be time consuming and just complicates the whole process. Which only leaves the participative leadership theory where everyone that is involved in fulfilling the similar objectives as that of the leader is equally involved in the decision making process.
References
D., S. (2004, July 11). Changing Works. Retrieved March 06, 2016, from Changingminds.org: http://changingminds.org/disciplines/leadership/theories/leadership_theories.htm
R., S. M. (1974). Handbook of Leadership: A Survey of Theory and Research. California: Free Press.
Sorrels, M. T. (2010). Undersatnding Your Role As a Leader. Xlibris Corporation.
Thomas, C. (1841). On Heroes, Hero-Worship and the Heroic in History. New York: James Fraser.
