The behavioural approach has one major shortcoming, the two theories represent very different types of leader behaviour, yet both are shown to be effective in management. The most probable reason for this is that other variables, particularly those related to the type of tasks or the characteristics of the work group determine whether certain leadership behaviours will be effective (Reggio,2013). Task orientated leader might be better suited to one situation, whereas a relationship –orientated leader might be better in a different situation. Contingency theories go a step above behavioural theories. It recognizes that there is no one best style of leadership behaviour.
The successful leadership in this theory does not depend on the characteristics of the leader in a certain situation but depends on the ability of the leader in dealing with the members of the group. The attributes possessed by a certain leader, such as intelligence, speed, intuition and firmness, and the managerial and technical skills he has acquired are not sufficient for the leader to emerge. The community has these features and capabilities. The successful leader is the one who can interact and create integration with the members of the group. This will not lead to the knowledge of the leader on the problems of the group and its requirements, and then work to solve these problems and achieve these requirements and considers this theory more realistic and positive in its analysis of the characteristics of administrative leadership.
The leadership theory my organization should embrace is the Contingency Leadership theory. This theory argues that there is no single way of leading and that every leadership style should be based on certain situations. Humans are not all the same, they do not react the same, nor is any situation the same. There are certain people who perform at the maximum level in certain places; but at minimal performance when taken out of their element. A leader, in order to continue being one, will have to adjust to what happens in the environment, that is, contingencies.
Unfortunately, in their view, they did not make potential linkages between charisma and performance especially clear and, indeed, devoted little attention to such linkages in their consideration of strategic leadership. Conger & Kanungo developed a model that focuses on several behavioral dimensions of charismatic leadership within organizations. According to the model, charismatic leadership is an attribution based on followers ' perceptions of their leader 's behavior. The leader 's observed behavior is interpreted by followers as expressions of charisma in the same sense as a leader 's behaviors reflect that individual 's participative, people and task orientations. Charismatic leaders differ from other leaders by their ability to formulate and articulate an inspirational vision and by behaviors and actions that foster an impression that they and their mission are extraordinary.
These traits are also frequently found in good managers, although the competencies needed for leadership can be taught by means of a well designed leadership development program. Waiting for a leader to emerge naturally is neither economical nor desirable, and certainly not an effective way of planning the leadership structure of a business. If we take a military example, more leaders come out of a military academy than are promoted on the field by virtue of displaying strong leadership potential. Good leaders should communicate well with those they are leading. Their thoughts and perceptions can help others to follow them.
The reason is he do not have good communication with their subordinate. One more important thing is Will Taylor is a person cannot sharing with other. The democratic leader must also be able to communicate that decision back to the group to bring unity the plan is chosen. This type of leadership style will look team work as important. In this type of leadership each person can perform as well.
Leadership is regarded as a position and role of an individual who directs or influences a group of people to accomplish their mission, to inspire commitments and improve the organization. Jago, (1982) opines that a Leader is made and not born. Leadership Theories Leaders can express their authority in diverse ways. However, Hersey & Blanchard (1969) are of the view that there is no single best style of leadership and that a leader cannot rely on a single management style to fit in all conditions. Situational leadership looks at various leadership styles and aims to provide the best fit style for a given situation to obtain optimal performance or output.
The greatest separation between management and leadership is that leaders need not to hold a management position. It is therefore possible for an individual to become a leader without obtaining a formal and official title. The ability to become a leader is based on either acknowledging or developing leadership as a personal quality. Groups of individuals are eager to follow a leader due to who he/she is as an individual and what this individual stands for and believes in. Leaders are not followed as a mere result of the authority conferred onto him or her by the organization, in actual fact, a leader is followed as he/she will show great passion and personal investment in the success of their followers.
The bureaucratic style of leadership is a style of leadership that is based on fixed rules and procedures which are set in advance to manage teams and projects. It is a style that is adhered by a number of departments or people following a strict set of rules. This style of leadership does not encourage innovation and change by leaders who may be themselves insecure and uncertain in what their role may be. People who use this style of leadership are often familiar with the standard policies and guidelines. However some people may feel out of their depth and will have a little hesitation in referring difficulties to a leader higher in demand.
It is assumed that to make a positive change and effectively conduct the functions of planning, organizing, motivating and controlling, one should have the quality of a leader. Meanwhile, it is argued that without sufficient authority, one will not be able to command and make adjustments. The key to a successful social movement is leadership, not authority.