Leadership Styles And Theories Of Leadership

Leadership is complex and, comprises of many definitions and qualities (Grimm 2010). One definition of leadership is ‘a multifaceted process of identifying a goal, motivating other people to act, and providing support and motivation to achieve mutually negotiated goals’ (porter-O’Grady 2003). Back in 1939 Kurt Lewin researched to identify different styles of leadership. According to his research, there are three major styles of leadership. Authoritarian or autocratic, participative or democratic and delegative or laizzes-fair. These three styles remain influential today. According to educational leaders.govt.NZ, leadership is about empowering, transforming and working together to meet schools and 21st century (www.tki).There are many leadership theories and from leadership theories comes leadership styles. the educational leadership model according to www.educational leaders.govt.nz identifies four qualities that build a leader 's capability to enhance teaching and learning outcomes for the school: manaakitangi- leading with moral purpose, pono- having self-belief, ako- being a learner, awhinatanga -guiding and supporting.

In this assignment I aim to outline the advantages, disadvantages and overall effectiveness of the different styles of leadership.

Leadership goes beyond management, for some, leadership is instinctual and pours over into your personal life. This paper will discuss a leader I admire in my personal life, and analyze their leadership style. I will discuss how that leader has influenced my leadership style, as well as how things like environment and the economy affect my leadership approach.

When developing a template to assess which leadership styles are best suited to mitigate the effects of a decline in financial compensation, it is imperative to understand leadership theory. One of the first pioneers in leadership theory was Kurt Lewin. Kurt Lewin (1890–1947), was a prominent figure in psychology in his generation. He provided a solid foundation to the teachings of organizational development. In many circles he was known as the father of organizational development. He was best known for the development of field theory. Field theory was essential because it allowed business professionals to understand why undesirable behaviors was produced. It also taught how to bring about desirable behaviors. Field theory was developed in part because Lewin wanted to address organizational employee turnover.

Organizational leadership builds on traditional theories in order to form new and exciting directions. Transactional leadership is a traditional theory, which has been used as a platform to understand leadership and further develop techniques for higher organizational performance. The three components of transactional leadership help shape and define the style, but are not always strictly adhered to. There are many advantages and disadvantages of transformational leadership. Knowing how and when to apply this style will prove useful for most successful organizational leaders. President Dwight Eisenhower was a good example of how transactional leadership could be used successfully.

 The transactional style of leadership is pretty straight forward but it uses rewards and punishments to motivate the team. This is a style of leadership that is similar but not as extreme as the autocratic style. The transactional styles are direct and dominant and spend a great amount of time saying what is expected from the team as a whole. The leaders monitor the work and each and everyone’s individual performance, there is also a clear chain of command.  Transactional leaders are very commonly found within businesses where people are given rewards such as bonuses, training or time off if they show a good demonstration.

Two different leadership styles, which were first identified in 2004 by a noted scholar named Burns, are transactional and transformational leadership (Marquis & Hutson, 2009). Transactional leadership is a more traditional style of leadership and it is where the leader sets goals, gives directions, and uses a reward system to motivate employee’s behaviors related to

The transactional leadership style - the leader focuses on exchanges of benefits or transactions with subordinates. A transactional leader believes that rewards motivate employees to reach their maximum potential.

Transformational and transactional leadership are two leadership styles have been identified that offer profound influence on employee’ perceptions and behaviors toward management and determine followership (Mosely & Patrick, 2011). These styles are polar opposites and span cultural and organizational boundaries. At some point in their career a leader

Leadership development is a multi-billion-dollar industry in the United States and Europe. This essay discusses the difference in transformational and transactional leadership styles and provide examples. Transformational leadership is developmental and usually begins with a transactional approach. First, transactional leader's behavior approach is management- by-exception. This leader puts out fires by taking corrective actions to solve the problem. Additionally, he/she uses contingent reward behavior: rewards an employee for doing a good job. Both concepts have proven to be effective. Something as simple as a pat on the back brings about a greater

The leader makes an agreement with the follower with outlined performance expectations, and the follower either rises to the expectations or not, each with a defined set of consequences. Bass (1997) wrote about two factors of transactional leadership; first this leadership style is contingent upon rewards. The next factor is management by exception, the leader intervenes if standards are not meet or if something goes wrong.

Transformation leadership fixates on the group's mission and gets employees to see beyond their own needs and self-intrigues for the good of the group. In other words, this gets the group to work in unison instead of everyone only worrying about themselves. Unlike this leadership, transactional leadership is when followers are rewarded if they had a good performance or punished when they do a bad performance. One difference is that with transformational the group works as one; therefore, the companies' success is essentially also the followers success. This approach is efficient to improve the company's performance. On the other hand , transactional leadership is not as efficient, since it puts to much focus on threats and discipline that it does not improve performance. Furthermore, transformation has four components which include charismatic leadership, inspirational leadership, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration. These components help followers to look up to the leaders as role models, to encourage creativity and motivation, and for leaders to pay attention toward the followers' individual needs. These components help the company be successful in the long run. On the other hand transactional does not work for the long run, it is better for short

A transformational leader treasures the feelings and respect, the loyalty among their followers and workers and emphasizes the significance of commitment with projects and group work. (Veiseh, Esfandyar, Mohsen, & Vahid, 2014, p. 113-124). Transformational leaders have a kind of initiative style that can motivate positive changes in the individuals who take after.

In today’s world, leaders are not defined by age, race or gender. They can be a high school basketball coach, the shift supervisor at the local coffee shop, or even the President of the United States of America. In as many ways that leaders can vary by appearance and responsibility, there is also a variance in the ways that they lead. This case study aims to compare three of the more popular theories of leadership. These leadership theories are situational leadership, trait theory and transformational leadership.

Leadership is a concept most people feel informed enough to discuss, but that few are truly educated sufficiently to comment on. Therefore, it is instructive to consider the leadership styles of people with very different approaches both to better understand the diversity underlying leadership, as well as to appreciate the effective and less effective strategies that underlie different leadership outcomes. For that reason, this essay will consider the styles of two leaders who are less visible in this highly contentious presidential election season: Jill Stein (the Green Party nominee) and Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate. The leadership styles of both are very different, yet they are aligned in the sense that both are outsider candidates struggling to gain momentum from a disaffected electorate. This essay begins with a theoretical discussion of leadership more generally and then turns to the two leaders as case studies, comparing and contrasting them and drawing conclusions about how they both work within the same public sphere and for putatively similar ends (i.e., gaining votes).