A Critical Review of Leadership Research Development

There have been numerous theories surrounding leadership, which attempt to explain which form is most effective in the workplace. A universalistic approach was once used to rationalize leadership and it was believed that successful leaders possessed certain common abilities and traits. However, today due to external factors such as globalization and advanced technologies, there has been an evolution towards a new paradigm of leadership. Subordinates want to feel empowered and engaged at the workplace and often the behaviors and relationships between leaders and their subordinates become important to understand in order to fully understand effective leadership. Contingency theories have been developed in which people began to look at the behavior of leaders in specific situations. Two such contingency theories are: Path-Goal and Hershey and Blanchard’s Situational Theory.

By referring to Hersey’s model of situational leadership model – adapted by JE Chamberlain from Mullins (2007:302) and Hersey et al (2000) followed on from a number of previous writes to develop the model of situational leadership.

Situational leadership theory is when a leader adapt’s to the situation and the management styles to the behavioral needs of the individual or group. Trait approach leadership gives more credence to the qualities and traits that people are born with that make them natural born leaders.

When you consider Fiedler’s Contingency Theory, there are two types of leaders who are effective in different types of situations. There are the task-oriented leaders who are effective in scenarios which need structure and often clarification. These leaders are often found to be most effective in crisis type

Situational leadership has very little in common with the other models mentioned herein. This model revolves around the leader changing leadership behaviors to meet the needs in relationship to the follower (Kouzes, 2003, p. 111). The difference between situational leadership and charismatic, servant, and transformational leadership is the lack of an organizational vision and the empowerment of the followers. Situational leadership uses followers based on their readiness level that relate to their ability and willingness to complete the task (Wren, 1995, p. 208). This aspect coupled with the leader’s task and relationship behavior is used in relation to the

The objective of this paper is to analyze three scholarly empirical articles on Leadership. Generally Leadership is the ability to influence peoples toward their achievement of objectives. A number of papers have been written on various aspects of Leadership. The focus of this paper would show a synthesis of three scholarly works on the topic of Leadership. The first article to be analyzed is of “Impact of Personal Growth Projects on Leadership Identity Development” by Odom, Boyd, and Williams (2012) whose purpose was to discuss results from a qualitative research study involving the analysis of personal growth assignments in a personal education collegiate course. The second article examined, “Leadership Styles, and Associated Personality Traits: Support for the conceptualization of transactional and transformational Leadership” by Eeden, Cilliers, and Deventer (2008). This article empirically examined the elements of transformational leadership, transactional leadership, and passive leadership. This was an empirical study in a South African production company. The third article to be considered, “Fearless Dominance and the U.S. Presidency: Implications of Psychopathic Personality Traits for Successful and Unsuccessful Leadership” by Lilienfeld, Waldman, Landfield, Watts, Rubenzer, Faschingbauer, (2012). This article examined psychopathic traits of successful and unsuccessful U.S. Presidents.

This paper will address why situational leadership theory is useful and relevant in developing an effective leadership culture. In addition, it will also discuss the three theories of situational leadership and what is considered to be the strengths and weaknesses of each theory when leading staff in the organizational environment.

The contingency model of leadership is based upon the relationship between three aspects of leader-follower-situation model. Apart from this contingency model, leaders are assumed to act in a flexible manner.

Leadership is an important factor within a business environment and often plays a significant role in achievement of organisational success (Landis, Hill & Harvey 2014). However, leadership is an art, therefore there is no simple formula for effective leadership (Hughes, Ginnett & Curphy 2015, p.33) and a leader’s effectiveness can often only be understood in the context of the leader-follower-situation interaction model.

The Contingency Theory applied to factors unique to each situation to determine whether specific leader characteristics and behaviors will be effective. Researched findings credit Fiedler 's contingency theory as the first to specify how situational factors interact with leader traits and behavior to influence leadership effectiveness. This theory suggests high interest in the situation determines the effectiveness of task- and person-oriented leader behavior.

The situational leadership model was developed by two authors, Ken Blanchard, and Paul Hersey in the year 1969. These authors based this model on the concept that leadership should adapt to different management practices and approaches to fit different situations and surpass any diversity of their encounters (Lussier & Achua, 2010). In particular, this model provides guidance on how to analyze a situation, choose effaceable strategies and adopt the most appropriate leadership style. Apparently, the two developers of the model researched and found that, given some case, leadership may fail to accomplish some goals due to adopting single

The most popular and extensively researched situational theory of leadership was first proposed by Fred Piedler during the 1960s. Fiedler's model claims that group performance depends on the interaction of the leader style and the favorableness of the situation. Fiedlers major contributions consist of(l) iden-tifying the leadership orientation of the leader and developing a way to measure it, and (2) identifying three situational factors influencing leadership and developing a method of measuring them

Research findings on Robert House’s Path Goal Theory are basically on the relationship between the leader’s style of leadership and the outcomes of the

Fielder’s contingency theory argues the effectiveness of a leader is contingent to leader ship style and the extent the leadership situation gives him or her influence and control over outcomes.

Overall, the path-goal theory, path-goal theory of leader effectiveness, or path-goal model can be considered as a variant on Transactional Leadership Theory, where the leader clearly is directing activity and the only factor that varies is the manner in which this is done. There are some aspects of Contingency Theory, as well, where various means of application vary with the situation. The leader sees a path that needs to be tread, one leading to the accomplishment of a goal and she or he attempts to clear it and get the group members to tread on it. The leader may cajole command, reward or punish, get suggestions from the group, or sugar coat the tasks, if necessary, but it is clear that democracy is not the hallmark of this method. The Path-goal of Leadership Effectiveness was created to rectify prior research and anomalies resulting from empirical investigations of the effects of leader/task orientation and leader/person orientation/relationship on worker satisfaction and performance (House 1971).