support an individuals with multiple conditions or disabilities

In this paper, we will review four leadership models: charismatic, servant, situational, and transformational. A separate discussion describing

Six styles of leadership are going to be examined in this paper; transactional, transformational, servant, charismatic, contingency, and strategic.

It was also Weber who began studies of bureaucracy, and whose works led to the popularization of this as a term. He developed theories of leadership, and how as society and organizational structure have changed over time, leadership techniques and organizational structures corporations adopt have adapted accordingly. Weber identifies three types of leader: the charismatic leader, who instills a sense of energy and eagerness among their team members. He is dedicated to his organization for the long run to produce adequate results. Secondly we have traditional authority, which is legitimated by the sanctity of tradition. The ability and right to rule is passed down, and is often often hereditary. But bureaucracies are typically led by the rational-legal leader, leading to a rise in this type of authority in recent times. This rational-legal will establish a clear structure within their organization, and follow procedures as they have been established, perfectly tying in with instrumental rationality. Bureaucratic leaders

Bass, B. M. (1990, Winter). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision. Organizational Dynamics, pp. 19-31.

Over the past twenty years, an abundant body of researches have been done to review transformational leadership and transactional leadership. Burn (1978) was the first person to introduce and conceptualize the concept of transformational leadership and transactional leadership. Bass (1985) based on Burn’s concept and deepened his notion with modifications, which stated that one of the best frameworks of leadership is transformational or transactional. Following Bass and Avolio (1994, p. 4) provided the idea of these two leaderships and generalized them into the development of global economic world. Bass and Avolio (1997) also suggested that there was no need to view transformational and transactional leadership as

Lussier and Achua (2016) define leadership as “the influencing process between leaders and followers to achieve organizational objectives through change” (p. 5). There are many different ways to categorize the dimensions of leadership. This section considers two groups of traits: transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire, as well as democratic, autocratic, and situational. The method that the leader utilizes to motivate followers can include transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire. The amount of input the leader seeks from the group can be categorized as democratic, autocratic, or situational.

What is leadership? How does society define as good and bad leaders? What are the traits most embodied by the successful leaders? These questions, along with many other, have been the topic of debate for centuries. Defining leadership in hard terms can be a challenging thing. In one hand, soldiers in the Army, for instance, can recite the definition of a leadership that came out of a publication. On the contrary, most soldiers will struggle to define what leadership means to them, in their words. However, troops in any organization can quickly identify who is a bad or a good leader. They know what right looks and feels like, though, putting it into terms can prove to be more challenging, and goes to demonstrate why it is

Charismatic authority comes from a person’s special qualities and ability to hold followers because of them. Charismatic individuals may use their authority over a whole society or even just a specific group within a larger one. These individuals can use their authority for good and sometimes bad. Some examples of these leaders can be: Adolf Hitler, Mahatma Gandhi, and Martin Luther King Jr. As you can see in the people who were listed, they all had amazing personal qualities that led to

Out of four styles of leadership which are Transformational, Transactional, Charismatic and Narcissistic in this essay our focus will be remain mainly on the Transformational Leadership.

(1990). From transactional to transformational leadership: learning to share the vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18, (3), Winter, 1990, 19-31.

The 1970s brought a number of emerging leadership theories, these theories focused on the importance of a leader 's charisma to leadership effectiveness. Many of these theories and models were the same. Transformational leadership theory separated itself between the transactional and the transformational leader. This leadership theory focuses on role and task requirements and utilizes rewards contingent on performance. Research shows that in contrast, transformational leadership focuses on developing mutual trust, fostering the leadership abilities of others, and setting goals that go beyond the short-term needs of the work group.

Authority is identified as “a source of compliance and a determinant of organizational forms” (Nelson, 1993, p. 653), and, is inextricably linked to the nature of the group in which the authority is exercised (Nelson, 1993). Weber’s bureaucracy exercises authority based on a rational-legal basis and, thus, is considered a legitimized form of authority (Casey, 2004). He posited that there are two other types of legitimate authority, namely, (1) traditional, and (2) charismatic (Casey, 2004; Nelson, 1993). Rather than resting on rules and rationality, traditional authority is founded on long-standing practice and charismatic authority on the “extraordinary personal qualities of the individual” (Nelson, 1993, p. 656). One of the most significant differences between the three types is the amount of freedom granted to the leaders individually. While the rational-legal tightly controls their decision-making ability, the charismatic has almost unlimited opportunity to make decisions, and the leader in the

Since Weber refers to political domination, in organizational behavior other concepts of leadership are applied. One of the more recent models of leadership however again emphasizes the importance of charisma. This model is called transformational leadership and has been coined by McGregor Burns (Huczynski and Buchanan, 2007, p. 718). It stresses the importance of charismatic leadership which is described as "[...] a leader–follower relationship in which leaders create a strong personal bond with followers." (Caldwell et al., 2012, p. 177) This bond is created because the followers believe that the leader has an extraordinary character (Caldwell et al., 2012, p. 177). He often goes beyond simply making instrumental, outcome choices and also makes normative value based choices and highly values moral (Caldwell et al., 2012, p. 176). By doing so he creates a common vision for his followers. He motivates them to work towards achieving the vision and putting this before their self-interest. Brass and Avolio (Huczynski and Buchanan, 2007, p. 718) state in their model of transformational leadership also the leaders ability to encourage others to see things from different, new perspectives as well as the ability to develop individuals to higher levels.

Nonetheless, in current literature, charismatic leadership has assumed a more benevolent approach to leadership. Instead of focusing on a strong moral conviction and the personality traits of the leader, the inclusion of transformational elements has added a behaviour element to the theory.

House, R.J. (1977). “A 1976 Theory of Charismatic Leadership”. In J.G. Hunt and L.L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership: The Cutting Edge (pp.189-207). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.