2.1. Leadership and the evolution of theories Various attempts have been proposed in order to trace the development of thinking and research on leadership and LMX theory. In this regard, Van Seters and Field (1990) divide the stages of theories of leadership in nine evolutionary eras: the personality, influence behavior, the situation of contingency, transactional, antiliderança, cultural and transformational (which would be the most promising). The division of the ages has the role to show how thinking about leadership has evolved over time. 2.2. The theory of exchange between Leader and Led Theories of leadership that the author described so far in LMX theory concerns about leaders that treat the same way to all his subordinates. But it's …show more content…
The relationships may vary exchanges which strictly related to the employment contract: low ratio LMX; to relations characterised by trust mutual, respect, same tastes and interplay: high quality LMX (Farndale, Van Ruiten, Kelliher and Hope‐Hailey, 2011). The LMX theory is one of the current approaches that studies the different relationships developed between leaders and followers, and their influence on organisational results. This theory has the concept that an effective leadership process occurs when leaders and followers are able to develop a mature relationship of partnership which also generates a number of benefits from this relationship (Chow, Lai and Loi, 2015). Results are effective when there is a positive influence between the parts (Dusterhoff, Cunningham and MacGregor, 2014). Research shows that the LMX theory has a significant correlation with several important results of an organisation. For example, LMX is negatively related to turnover positively related to organisational commitment and the assessments of superiors about work performance and satisfaction with the job (Hill, Kang and Seo, 2014). It is considered the importance of the results organisational to the success of an organisation and the assumption that employees satisfied tends to be more productive, creative and innovative, in …show more content…
More detailed from Burns's work was, describing the processes transformational in organisations and distinguishing transformational leadership, charismatic and Transactional (Lian, Ferris and Brown, 2012). First, Loi, Chan and Lam (2014) does not consider the lead transformational and transactional as opposed, but only different dimensions. Mathieu, Fabi, Lacoursiere and Raymond (2015) detailed the basic components of these two types of leadership and developed indicators quantitative for each component, providing elements for further research on the subject (Mallory, Rupp, Bauer and Erdogan,
Leadership defined by the people, trait and behaviour. Great man theory and trait theory are based on personal, some people are innate leadership since the mental, body and thinking stronger than the followers (Horner, 1997; Bolden, Gosling, Marturano & Dennison, 2003). Bolden, Gosling, Marturano and Dennison (2003) states that next stage of leadership theory is behaviour, leaders' behaviour will make a positive effect on team or organization, it can help the team to achieve the
Introduction: This annotated bibliography has been prepared to provide readers the essential information on leadership and management. Source 1: Zaleznik, A., 1977. Managers and Leaders: Are they different? Harvard Business Review, 55(3), p.67 Abraham Zaleznik was leading scholar and teacher in the field of organizational psychodynamics and the psychodynamics of leadership.
Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995, January 1). Relationship-Based Approach to Leadership: Development of Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) Theory of Leadership over 25 Years: Applying a Multi-Level Multi-Domain
TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP Transformational Leadership is defined as leadership style focused on effecting revolutionary change in organizations through a commitment to the organization’s vision. (Sullivan & Decker, 2001) Transformational leaders are usually given higher position and are known for their charismatic sense and ability to develop high visions and regards in the work they do. They often give their best performances due to the low morale or self esteem Example: Steve Job, Bill Gates and Ratan Tata. As the existentialist rightly said, we always have a choice, in doing what we already have done or doing that which we have never done.
In the Leader–Member Exchange (LMX) theory of leadership, the quality of the exchange relationship between a leader and a particular member of a work unit, team or organization is the basic unit of analysis (dyad). In this article, we try to answer the question whether research on the various aspects of the exchange processes between leaders and their subordinates is consistent with the theoretical underpinnings of LMX theory. Our focus is on the similarities and differences between the theoretical assumptions of LMX theory and the way the core concepts are elaborated in empirical studies. Although LMX theory has resulted in a number of useful accomplishments, both theoretical and practical, it still faces a number of challenges. The main challenges
The definitions of leadership appearing in the first three decades of the 20th century emphasized control and centralization of power (Northouse, 2016, p.2). In the early 1900s research began to see if leaders possessed certain traits or characteristics that would distinguish
Leader-member exchange theory is another approach that conceptualizes leadership as a process that is centered on the interactions between leaders and followers. (Northouse p.137) While this approach is great in theory it does not always engage all members of the staff. Staff members who were unhappy with management or have a poor attitude towards their career/current position have the tendency to only do what is absolutely required to stay employed.
I think the Leader Member Exchange Theory (LMX) is different from the other theories we have discussed in EL700 such as trait approach, skill approach and style approach. These are all focusing on characteristic and behaviors of the person with the positional power. LMX is not the leadership that is predicted by the leader or by the subordinate. The LMX is focusing on interactions between leaders and followers and that effective leadership comes from a vertical relationship between the leader and the subordinate. These interactions can be high quality or low quality.
LMX proposes that supervisors contribute work opportunities, information and support in exchange for commitment, effort and proactive behaviours from subordinates (Wilson, Sin & Conlon, 2010). A key element of LMX is the notion that supervisors form different relationships with specific subordinates (Dansereau, Graen & Haga, 1975). These relationships vary in quality; the quality of the relationships is proposed to influence attitudes and behaviours at work (Kamdar & Van Dyne, 2007). There is less research investigating poor quality LMX relationships (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005), however it is theorised that such relationships are relatively impersonal and consist of economic exchanges (Kamdar & Van Dyne, 2007). In contrast, high quality LMX are characterised by mutual trust, respect and liking (Liden, Wayne & Stilwell,
In this regard, leaders and managers can appear at any level of an organisation and are not exclusive of each other (Germano, 2010). Leadership theories identify leaders based upon traits as well as how their influence and power is used to achieve organizational goals and objectives (Germano, 2010). As such, trait based characteristics include leaders such as autocratic, democratic, bureaucratic and charismatic. On the other hand, leadership that is viewed from the perspective of the exchange of power and its utilisation to secure outcomes, are situational, transactional and transformational leaders (Germano, 2010). It is of paramount importance to consider the different types of theories of management and leadership and their potential impact on organizational strategy being that management and leadership plays a vital role in the success of businesses.
LEADERSHIP Ogbeidi (2012) found that leadership is referred as “ability to lead, direct and organize a group”. The study of leadership has developed scientifically through changing paradigms during its history where several models and theories have tried to explain the concept of leadership. Kuchler (2008) acknowledges that although subject of leadership is diverse and somewhat scattered but it tends to be one of the most widely discussed topics by the researchers all over the world. We found myriad definitions of leadership after studying detailed literature on it. The concept of leadership is described by different researchers with different perspectives.
This paper will examine the three leadership theories, identify how they apply to my practice, and explore how these theories interact with each other. The Trait Leadership Theory is based on the belief that a person is born with special traits contributing to natural leadership abilities. Studies of famous historical leaders have been used to identify various traits for this theory. Although the list of traits differs from study to study, there are five major traits that are consistent throughout most studies.
This paper is going to encompass different leadership theories and their relevance to my own personal personality and method of leadership. There will be information on the advantages and disadvantages of the leadership theories and information on each including examples. The purpose of this paper is to view various kinds of leadership theories and apply them to a real-life scenario. Leadership Theories There are quite a few different leadership theories available for people to take information from and use in business settings and even personal settings.
Interpersonal exchange relationship is crucial in this process and the level of exchange is predictive of subsequent organizational phenomenon. Studies have established that members reporting high-quality relationship with their leaders assumed greater job responsibilities and contributed more to their units, as compared to the members reporting low-quality relationship. Liden and Graen (1980) in their study on “Generalizability of the vertical dyad linkage model of leadership” has observed that based on the quality of LMX relationship when followers are rated as high performers, they assumed greater job responsibilities and contributed more to their units. Dunegan, K. J., Uhl-Bien, M., & Duchon, D. (2002) in their study on “LMX and Subordinate
The relationship is what I did not recognize as a leading cause to this theory working. I did not understand how the leaders behavior could influence their followers level of commitment. When House (1996) stated, ":Leaders are justified in their role by being instrumental to the performance and satisfaction of subordinates." ( p325) It was here, I understood roadblocks had many shapes, and the leader behavior used was contingent upon the