Most of the team effectiveness theories recognize the crucial role of leadership within a team. In fact, team leadership represents a fundamental characteristic of effective team performance (Zaccaro, Rittman, & Marks, 2001). For this reason, “team leadership as a discipline appears to be on the cusp of some truly significant breakthroughs” (Day, Gronn, & Salas, 2006: 2011). As the relevance of leadership is undeniable it seems comprehensible the innumerous researches around this theme. According to Yukl, (2012) “the essence of leadership in organizations is influencing and facilitating individual and collective efforts to accomplish shared objectives” (p.66).
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.
(2013) have generated their own framework, according to which all mentoring styles may fall under two categories, such as transmission-oriented mentoring and constructivist-oriented mentoring (p. 168). Transmission-oriented mentoring style is related to behaviorist learning theory, where knowledge is provided by the experts (mentors) to the “passive recipients of information” (Richter et al., 2013, p. 168), or novices. Therefore, transmission-oriented mentoring is heavily hierarchical, “manifesting the status quo” relationship (Richter et al., 2013, p. 168). In contrast, constructivist-oriented mentoring refers to the constructivist learning paradigm (Guba & Lincoln, 1994), where both sides are engaged in active collaboration and learn throughout the process (Richter et al., 2013, p. 168). Moreover, as experiment has shown, those beginning teachers whose mentors were using a constructivist-oriented
Trait Theory a. The trait model of leadership is based on the characteristics of many leaders - both successful and unsuccessful - and is used to predict leadership effectiveness. b. The resulting lists of traits are then compared to those of potential leaders to assess their likelihood of success or failure c. Core traits identified are: i. Achievement drive: High level of effort, high levels of ambition, energy and initiative ii.
Some of the benefits of the Hersey and Blanchard situational leadership theory are, 1) it’s easy to apply because it’s simple, 2) the theory give simple measures for leaders to use in assessing what leadership style they should use, 3) the maturity and competence have factors that are overlooked and it helps focus on these (Leadership-Central, 2010). Despite the benefits, there are three non-beneficial factors of the theory. The cons of this theory are 1) the theory may not be applicable to mangers as administrators or those with limited power, 2) there may be situations where the theory is less applicable, and lastly, the testing of the theory doesn’t seem to bear out the predictions (Leadership-Central, 2010). However, by using the situational leadership theory, leaders can become flexible in leadership to support a variety of individuals with various capabilities and
In leadership, there are three main scientific paradigms that lay in a leader; trait, behaviour and contingency which has extended into numerous styles. The scientific paradigm includes autocratic, democratic, participative, directive, task-oriented, relation-oriented, transformational and transactional, charismatic, laissez-faire and servant leadership (Hassan, Asad & Hoshina, 2016, pg. 162). Besides, leadership trait which identifies personality traits, such as introversion, often bring into the cooperation of the leader emergence and effective (Clack 2017, pg. 2).
These theories are leader focused, describing the process and techniques a leader uses to accomplish goals. 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.
At the Coast Guard Academy, many discussions revolve around leadership. We learn about great leaders of the past, what made them excel, and how to prepare for our own future leadership challenges. Besides learning about great leaders, cadets learn about how to make themselves world changing leaders through the study of leadership theories and lengthy self-reflection. One way for a cadet to determine who they are as a leader, is to create their own leadership philosophy. Through the creation of a leadership philosophy, it is possible for an individual to determine what leadership qualities they find important.
Many debates the concept of Leadership: is there a right way to lead and who is an effective leader and where is the line between effective and atrocious leader. The question society has asked for ages, what is the right thing to accomplish and did they initiate the proper choice. The idea of leadership has been around since humanity could conceive of the community, but the study of leadership is a new phenomenon. The beginning of leadership was the great men theory and after that a colossal amount of theories on the leaders emerged trait theories and value theories. Later in time they added the follower and context, but the focal point for a multitude of scholars today is the leader.
I had an average result, which wasn’t very good. The group result was poor compared to some individual result. Our group members might have trusted eachother too much or felt shy to let their feelings out, but due to this, our team result wasn’t good enough. I believe we could improve on this part and be confident while speaking about what each of us think. It is essential to have 360 feedbacks to make a decision and for this challenge, we didn’t receive personal point of view but rather most of the members just agreed without speaking.