Behavior Leadership Theory

What really makes a dear draw? Psychologist and managers tried to answer this question. Chronologically, the first answer to what makes a good leader was that leaders argon not made, they are born (Fairholm, 1991). This was the first conjecture of leading, the Great Men Theory. Many other theories were divided by Fairholm and these are the following theories ground on who the leader is, wherein this group focuses on the leaders characteristic theories establish on what the leader does, wherein the behavior surmise belong to this group.It is focused on studying leaders behavior so that it tidy sum be reproduced by followers and the theories based on the Environment of the Leadership. Leadership is a difficult topic to study because leadership is a fuzzy concept. For decades, social scientists and practitioners remove been struggling to come up with the ultimate definition of leadership, to exempt its mechanisms, and to draw the line between leadership and management. They hav e produced a number of definitions and theories.Long time ago, determinants of leadership has been identified by behavioral theorists, so that people could be trained to be leaders. Since the best styles of leadership can be learned, training programs have been coached to change managers leadership behaviors. During the World War II, the leaders of the honorary society left the Isle of Traits and set sale for the Isle of Behaviors by the 1940s. They suspected that the X and Y Theory of Leadership of Myers or Briggs, was some kind of fraud. The troops precious to know if leaders could be trained, and if so, what behaviors made them most effective.The Academy of Leader Professors wanting to get tenure, fame in time of world crisis, and fortune persistent that some new theory of leadership must be found or all their jobs would be as extinct as dinosaurs. Working with the array and with universities, two biggest Page2 bureaucracies in the world, it was mostly about transactional beh avior, being autocratic or democratic to increase the transaction rate or quality. The bouncing of life in organizations was never to be transformed and their quest was to find universal leader behavior styles that correlate with effectiveness and are optimal legal proceeding in all situations.Squire Fleishman and Sir Katz set off for the Isle of Behavior in separate ships as they are desperate to establish a behavioral settlement, further found out that Scribe Lewin had already established a behavioral settlement and an Iowa University since 1938. On the Isle of Behaviors, leader (transactional) behaviors became observable and their study turned accusing and measurable. Different Universities wanted to make its mark and study what do leaders do by using some statistical methods, then the Ohio State and myocardial infarct University grappled for the education of the peasants.Fleishman became King of Ohio State and Katz was made King of Michigan University. Lewin was already Ki ng at Iowa. Each 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, controlling, or leading. He actually observed and put down the progress what transactions that leaders do. The world was shocked to disc over, that leaders had a hectic, frantic, and fragmented transaction life, and did little of the behaviors thought to take place.Some leaders were single figureheads, still he did confirm Sir Mertons view, but noting all the roles that leaders do. While the Isle of Behavior was oversupplied with two-factor studies of behavior and observations of roles here and everywhere, that great explored, Prince Yukl decided that process was more all-important(a) than some list of universal behaviors. And by 2001, Prince Page3 Howell and Knight Costley joined the search for process. They still liked to isolate and mea sure behaviors, but wanted to do this in the study of processes. They made great maps of the world of leadership, charting apiece territory.Leaders were reduced from traits or greatness to just psychoalgebraic behavioral equations, to styles or just transactions. except 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 off to the Isle of Situation in the 1960s, with new waves of migration each decade since. This is where the arts 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 leadership. The X dimension runs from Transactional to transformational leader ship, as studied by fire (1978) and Bass (1985). This is a classic dualism in leadership studies. Burns looked at modal thinking (the means over ends reasoning) in the early stages of development and held that the leaders are transactional in their behaviors. Transactional leadership requires a shrewd plaza for opportunity, a good hand at bargaining, persuading, reciprocating (Burns, 1978169).A transformational leader, on the other hand, recognizes and exploits an existing need 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. Eventually transformational leaders were thought to engage in behaviors that Page4 changed the game, even changed the world. Douglas McGregor described Theory X and Y in his book, The Human Side of Enterprise, that X and Y theory each represent incompatible ways in which leaders view employees.Theory X managers believe that employees are motivated mainl y by money, are lazy, uncooperative, and have poor pop off habits. Theory 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 average human being has an inherent dislike of work and pass on avoid if he or she can. Because of this human characteristic of dislike of work, most people must be controlled, directed, and threatened with punishment to get them to put forth adequate effort toward the achievement of organizational objectives.The average human being prefers to be directed, wishes to avoid responsibility, has relatively little ambition, wants security above all. This theory leads by nature 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 administering rewards and punishment. Theory X condones the consequences of a particular managerial strategy. Because it s 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, allow 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 physical and mental effort in work are as natural as play or rest. Page5 External control and the threat of punishment are not the exactly means for bringing 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 accept but also to seek responsibility. The capacity to exercise a relatively high degree of imagination, ingenuity, and creativity in the solution of organizational problems in widely, not narrowly, distributed in the popu lation. Under the condition of modern industrial life, the intellectual potentialities of the average human being are only partially utilized. Theory Ys aim 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 deal attempt to link improvement in managerial competence with the satisfaction of higher-level ego and self-actualization needs. Theory Y leads to a preoccupation with the nature of relationships, with the creation of an environs 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. Note 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 fetching 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 micro 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 person over others, the quality of leadership is a critical determinant of organizational success. Thus, leaders study lea dership in order 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, later 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, both emotionally and behaviorally. Yet, behavior cant always account for leadership in different 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 charismatic and visionary, can inspire followers to transcend their own self-interest for Page7 the good of the organization.