Neoclassical Theory of Management

A) HUMAN RELATIONS OR HAWTHRONE STUDIES:

 B) BEHAVIOURAL SCIENCE APPROACH
Behavioural Science Approach is an extension of the Human Relations Approach. Elton Mayo
and his team used simple research methods. However, researchers, like Abraham Maslow,
Douglas McGregor, etc., used more complex research methods. Thus are called "Behavioural
scientists."

The behavioural science approach is also called "Human Resource Approach". It gave importance to
attitudes, behaviour and performance of individuals and groups in the organisations.

Behavioural scientists brought two new aspects to the study of management.

1. They gave a more complex view of human beings and their needs and motives. For e.g. Abraham
Maslow, gave importance to Self-actualization need of human beings.
2. They used scientific methods to study the group behaviour in organisations.

Assumptions of Behavioural Science Approach

Basic assumptions and propositions of Behavioural Science Approach are :-

1. Organisations are socio-technical systems. The management must integrate both the systems.
2. Work and interpersonal behaviour of people in the organisation is influenced by many factors.
3. Employees are motivated not only by physiological needs but also by social and psychological
needs.

4. Different people have different perceptions, attitudes, needs and values. These differences must
be found out and recognised by management.

5. In an organisation conflicts are unavoidable.

6. Personal goals and Organisational goals must be joined together.

Contributions of Behavioural Scientists

Abraham Maslow, James March and Herbert Simon, Douglas McGregor, Victor Vroom, Fredrick
Herzberg, Chestar Barnard, etc., made important contributions to the behavioural science approach.

The main contributions made by above Behavioural Scientists are :-

1. Abraham Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs Theory : Human beings have many needs. Some are
lower-level needs like physiological needs, safety and security needs, and social needs, These needs
must be satisfied first. The higher level needs are ego needs, and self-actualisation needs. These
needs are satisfied after satisfying lower-level needs.
2. James March and Herbert Simon : There are many types of communication in an
organisation. This is essential for the performance of the organisation.

3. Douglas McGregor's Theory X and Y : Different managers have different assumptions about
people. This depends on the situation. Managers may have negative assumptions about people.
That is, human beings hate to work and therefore, they must be forced, controlled, directed, and
threatened with punishment to make them work. (Theory X). Managers may have positive
assumptions about people, i.e. people love to work, and that people have self-control and self-
direction. (Theory Y).

4. Victor Vroom's Expectancy Theory of Motivation : People will be motivated to reach a goal, if
they believe (i) in the worth of the goal, and (ii) in the steps taken to reach that goal.

5. Fredrick Herzberg's Two Factor Theory : There are many factors that influence behaviour and
work of people in an organisation. One group of factors is called "hygiene factors". They are salary,
working conditions. Supervision, etc. If these factors exist in the organisation then there will be no
dissatisfaction. However, these factors will not motivate the workers. The second group of factors
is called "motivators". They are recognition, achievement, challenging work, etc. These factors
bring satisfaction and motivation.

6. Chester Barnard : The managers must maintain a system of co-operation in the organisation.
Modern Approach:

Recent development took place in management theories after 1930. It was perhaps Chester I. Barnard, who
in 1938 provided a comprehensive explanation of the modern view of management and organization. He
considered the individual, organisation suppliers and customers as a part of the environment. Ten years
later Norbert Weiner’s 21 pioneering work on cybernetics developed concepts of systems controlled by
information feedback.

It is important to note that with the passage of time, the viewpoints have been changed or modified. Each
major contributor brought new knowledge, awareness, tools and techniques to understand the organization
better. In modern era, we are richer than even before in terms of our knowledge about approaches to
understand organisations better.

The modern approach includes the following view points:

(i) Quantitative Approach,

(ii) Systems Approach, and

(iii) Contingency Approach.

The details of these theories are discussed below:

(i) Quantitative Approach:

The approach gained the prominence after the world war II, when British formed the operational research
team-group of mathematicians, physicists and other scientists who were brought together to solve problems
and operations.

These groups were expected to develop optimal decisions about deployment of military resources. This
approach is also known as ‘Management Science Approach, Mathematical Approach, Decision Theory
Approach or Operations Research.’
It is based on the approach of scientific management. It offers a systematic and scientific analysis and
solutions to the problems faced by managers. Today management Science Approach solving a problem
begins when a mixed team of specialists from relevant disciplines is called to analyses the problems and
propose a course of action to management.

The team constructs a mathematical model to simulate the problem. The model, shows in symbolic terms,
all the relevant factors that bear on the problem and how they are interrelated.

Eventually, management science team presents management with a rational basis for making a decision.
The techniques commonly used for solving mathematical problems in decision-making are Linear
programming, critical path method, PERT, Games Theory, Queuing theory, Break Even Analysis, etc.
Simply, operation Research is regarded as the application of scientific methods and mathematical models
for solving problems.

The basic postulates of Operation Research Method are as:

(a) Management is regarded as a problem-solving mechanism with the help of mathematical tools and
techniques.

(b) Management problems can be described in quantitative or mathematical symbols, data and relationship.

(c) The different variables in management can be quantified and related to equation which can be solved.

(d) It covers decision making, system analysis, and some aspect of human behaviour.

(e) The team uses the basic mathematical models; operation research mathematical tools, simulation,
games theory, PERT, CPM to solve the problems.

Over the years, a large number of quantitative techniques and operation research have been developed.
The major contributors included in this school are Newman, Charles Hitch, Russell Ackoff, Robert Schlaifer,
Herbert Simon, James March, R.M. Cyert and W.C. Churchman. The techniques of management science
are a well-established part of the problem solving armory of most large organizations.

Management Science techniques are used in such activities as capital budgeting and cash flow
management, production, scheduling, development of product strategies, planning for human resource
development, optimum inventory levels, etc.
The development of techniques has contributed significantly in developing orderly thinking in management
and the study of various problems and talking optimum or best solutions to the problem. It provides a
rational basis of decision making. It has been used as a planning and controlling tool in management.

Quantitative Approach suffers from the limitations in spite of widespread use of many problems:

(a) This approach is focused on decision-making and ignored other functions of management.

(b) Management Science Approach is too complicated for ready understanding the concept and language of
the problem and implementation.

(c) Management Scientists feel that they have not achieved their full potential for solving management
problems because of their remoteness from and lack of awareness of the problem and constraints actually
faced by managers.

(d) It does not consider the human element in the organisation.

(e) The approach is based on unrealistic assumptions, e.g., all related variables are measurable and have a
functional relationship.

On the whole, due to these constraints, the quantitative approach has very limited application that only in
respect of decision-making and problem-solving.

(ii) System Approach:

In the nineteenth century, modern theories of organization and management have been developed. The
perspective here is to provide a systems view point. In 1951, Weiner’s pioneering work on cybernetics
developed concepts of systems control by information feedback.

He described on adaptive system as mainly dependent upon measurement and correctional through
feedback. Later, Ludwig Von, Hempel, Bass and Hans Joans 22 and Keneth E. Boulding 23 evolved the
General System Theory (GST). Significant contributions have been made by A.K. Rice, E.L. Trist, D.S.
Pough, Robert Katz/Kahn in systems approach.

The Systems Approach to management attempts to view the organisation as a unified, purposeful system
composed of interrelated parts. The system Approach gives managers a way of looking at an organisation
as a whole and as a part of the larger environment. System Theory tells us that the activity of any part of an
organisation affects the activity of every other part. It is an-integrating approach which considers the
management in its totality.

A system is defined as the assemblage of things connected or independent, so as to form a complex unity,
a whole composed of parts in orderly arrangement according to plan. This has been defined as ‘an
organized of complex whole’, an assemblage or combination of things or parts forming a complex unitary
whole.

The world is considered to be a system in which various national economy are sub-systems. In turn, each
national economy is composed of its various industry, each industries is composed of firms, and of course,
each firms is composed of various components such as production, finance, marketing, etc.

Thus, each system consists of several such systems and, in turn, each subsystem further is composed of
various components or sub-units; which are interrelated or interdependent each other.

The main elements of Systems Approach are as:

(a) An organization is a unified and integrative system consisting of several interrelated and interdependent
parts. It gives a manager a way of looking at the organization as a whole.

(b) A system is considered an open system because it interacts with the environment. All organizations
interact with their environment. It gets various resources from the environment and transforms them into
outputs desired by the environment.

(c) The parts that make-up the whole of a system are called sub-systems. And each system in turn may be
a sub-system of a still larger whole. All these sub-systems are functionally interacting and interdependent.

(d) Each system has a boundary that separates it from its environment. The boundaries are more flexible in
an open environment. It maintains the clear and proper relationship between the system and its
environment.

The system boundary is rigid in closed system. The boundary of a system classifies it into two parts – (a)
open system, (b) closed system.

(e)  Management as a system is dynamic which suggests-that equilibrium in the organisation always
changing. The survival and growth in a dynamic environment demands an adaptive system which can
continuously adjust to changing environment. Management tends to bring changes in the sub-systems of
the organisation to cope up with the environmental challenges.
(f) Systems Approach follows the law of synergy. Synergy means that the whole is greater than the sum of
its parts. In organizational terms, it means that as separate departments within an organisation cooperate
and interact, they become more productive than if each had acted in isolation. The parts of a system
become more productive when they interact with each other.

(g)  Feedback is the key to system controls. As operation of the system proceeds, information is fed back to
the appropriate people or perhaps to a computer so that the work can be assessed and, if necessary,
corrected.

(h)  Management as a discipline draws and integrates knowledge from various disciplines and schools of
thought, like psychology, sociology, anthropology, mathematics, operation research, and so on.

Evaluation of System Theory:

System theory calls attention to the dynamic and interrelated nature of organisations and the management
task. Thus, systems theory provides, understand unanticipated consequences as they may develop. System
is a framework within which we can plan actions and anticipate both immediate and far-reaching
consequences and at the same time, it allows us to understand unanticipated consequences as they may
develop.

With a system perspective, generally managers can more easily maintain a balance between the needs of
the various parts of the enterprise and the needs and goals of the firm as a whole.

One of the implications of this approach is the integration of various factors affecting management. The
systems Approach forces the management to think out in a new and different way.

Lastly, systems approach facilitates better understanding of willingness in complex environment, that is, the
system within which managers make decisions can be provided a more explicit framework, and such
decision-making should be easier to handle.

Inspite these significant points, the systems approach is not free form limitations:

(a) The systems approach cannot be considered a unified theory of organisation. This is in no way a unified
body of thought. Systems approach fails to take a comprehensive study to analyze the organisations from
different angles.

(b) The systems approach has failed to specify the nature of interactions and inter dependencies between
an organisation and its external environment.
(c) The systems approach has failed to spell out the precise relationship between various subsystems.

(d) The systems approach does not provide action framework applicable to all types of organisations.

(e) The systems approach does not offer any tools or techniques for analysis and synthesis of the system
and environment.

(iii) Contingency Approach:

Contingency Approach shares a common ancestry with socio-technical system theories. The latest
approach of management which integrates the various approaches is known as ‘contingency’ or ‘situational’
approach. Charles Kindleberger specified upon what it depends, and in what ways. It depends is an
appropriate response to the important questions in management.

Management theory attempts to determine the predictable relationships between situation, actions, and
outcomes. It focuses on the interdependence of the various factors involved in managerial situation. The
early beginnings can be found in the studies of Burns and Stalker in 1950 which examines what happens to
the behaviour of organisation members as a consequence of technological changes.

Joan Woodward analyzed the influence of technology on organisation structure. She found that span of
control; interpersonal relationships, participation and other structural aspects differed to technology used.

Lawrence and Lorsch (1967) attempted to explain the internal states and processes in an organisation
according to their external environment. Jay Galbraith revealed that the amount of information required by
an organization depend on the level of uncertainties, interdependence and adaptation mechanisms.

Tom Bums, G.W. Stalker. Joan Woodward, James Thompson, Paul Lawrence, Jay Galbraith and other
pioneers made significant contribution to the contingency theory.

The contingency approach was developed by managers, consultants, and researches who tried to apply the
concepts of the major schools to read-life situations. They found that methods that were effective in one
situation would not work in other situations

According to contingency approach, then, the task of managers is to identify which technique will in a
particular situation under particular circumstances, and at a particular time, best contribute to the attainment
of management goals. The basic theme of the contingency approach is that there is no single best way of
managing application in all situations. The application of management principles and practices should be
contingent upon the existing circumstances.
Functional, behavioural, quantitative and systems tool of management should be applied situational.
Management should deal with different situations in different ways. There cannot be a particular
management action or design which will be appropriate for all situations.

Contingency Approach is based on generalizations of ‘if’ and ‘then’. ‘If’ represents environmental variables
which are interdependent. ‘Then’ represent management variables which are dependent on the
environment.

The system approach emphasizes the interrelationships between parts of an organization. The contingency
approach builds upon this perspective by focusing in detail on the nature of relationships existing between
these parts.

It seeks to define those factors that are crucial to a specific task or issue and to clarify the functional
interactions between related factors. This approach is a long-sought synthesis that brings together the best
of all segments of what Harold Koontz has called the “Management Theory Jungle.”

The main features of contingency approach are as:

(a) The contingency approach stresses that there is no one best style of leadership which will suit every
situation. The effectiveness of leadership style varies from situation to situation. Therefore, according to this
approach, management is entirely situational.

(b) Contingency Approach is action-oriented as it is directed towards the application of systems concepts
and the knowledge gained from other approaches. The contingency approach builds upon this perspective
by following in detail on the nature of relationships existing between these parts.

(c) Contingency theory attempts to determine the predictable relationships between situations, actions and
outcomes.

(d) Management should match or ‘fit’ its approach to the requirements of the particular situation.
Management has to exercise the action subject to environmental changes.

(e) Contingency approach provides significant contribution in organisational design. It suggests that no
organizational design can be suitable for all situations, rather, the suitable design is one determined,
keeping in view the requirements of environment, technology, risk and people. Contingency approach is
useful orientation in management.
It emphasizes the multivariate nature of organisations and attempts to understand how organizations
operate under varying conditions in specific circumstances. This theory suggests organization design and
actions which are most appropriate for specific situation.

Critical Evaluation:

The primacy of contingency approach is challenged by several theorists. They argue, for one thing, that the
contingency approach does not incorporate all the aspects of systems theory, and they hold that it has not
yet developed to the point of which it can be considered a true theory.

Critics also argue that there is really not much that is new about contingency approach. For example, even
the classical theorists such as Fayol cautioned that management principles must be flexible.

The contingency approach is also criticized on the ground that it is totally a practical approach without being
supported by required theoretical and conceptual framework. The managers experience difficulty in
analyzing situations in the absence of needed research devices and generalizations for understanding
behaviour of the situation. Some of the classical theorists forgot the pragmatic cautions of Fayol and others.
Instead, they tried to come up with “universal principles” that could be applied without the “it depends”
dimension.

Managers applied the absolute principles by these theorists. Lastly, the consideration of environmental
factors is necessary to develop an organizational design and action. But, managers are certainly unaware of
the environmental changes and could not analyze the environmental factors properly.

The theme of contingency approach that management must be aware of the complexity and trying to
determine what would work best in a particular situation in the absence of certain methods, models and
techniques that are relevant to appraise situation.
 leadership Theories
Theories are commonly categorized by which aspect is believed to define the leader the most. The most
widespread one's are: Great Man Theory, Trait Theory, Behavioural Theories, Contingency
Theories, Transactional Theories and Transformational Theories.

Great Man Theory (1840s)

The Great Man theory evolved around the mid 19th century. Even though no one was able to identify with
any scientific certainty, which human characteristic or combination of, were responsible for identifying
great leaders. Everyone recognized that just as the name suggests; only a man could have the characteristic
(s) of a great leader.

The Great Man theory assumes that the traits of leadership are intrinsic. That simply means that great
leaders are born they are not made. This theory sees great leaders as those who are destined by birth to
become a leader. Furthermore, the belief was that great leaders will rise when confronted with the
appropriate situation. The theory was popularized by Thomas Carlyle, a writer and teacher. Just like him,
the Great Man theory was inspired by the study of influential heroes. In his book "On Heroes, Hero-
Worship, and the Heroic in History", he compared a wide array of heroes.

In 1860, Herbert Spencer, an English philosopher disputed the great man theory by affirming that these
heroes are simply the product of their times and their actions the results of social conditions.

Trait Theory (1930's - 1940's)

The trait leadership theory believes that people are either born or are made with certain qualities that will
make them excel in leadership roles. That is, certain qualities such as intelligence, sense of responsibility,
creativity and other values puts anyone in the shoes of a good leader. In fact, Gordon Allport, an American
psychologist,"...identified almost 18,000 English personality-relevant terms".

The trait theory of leadership focused on analyzing mental, physical and social characteristic in order to gain
more understanding of what is the characteristic or the combination of characteristics that are common
among leaders.

There were many shortfalls with the trait leadership theory. However, from a psychology of personalities
approach, Gordon Allport's studies are among the first ones and have brought, for the study of leadership,
the behavioural approach.
  In the 1930s the field of Psychometrics was in its early years.
 Personality traits measurement weren't reliable across studies.

 Study samples were of low level managers

 Explanations weren't offered as to the relation between each characteristic and its impact on
leadership.

 The context of the leader wasn't considered.

Many studies have analyzed the traits among existing leaders in the hope of uncovering those responsible
for ones leadership abilities! In vain, the only characteristics that were identified among these individuals
were those that were slightly taller and slightly more intelligent!

Behavioural Theories (1940's - 1950's)

In reaction to the trait leadership theory, the behavioural theories are offering a new perspective, one that
focuses on the behaviours of the leaders as opposed to their mental, physical or social characteristics. Thus,
with the evolutions in psychometrics, notably the factor analysis, researchers were able to measure the
cause an effects relationship of specific human behaviours from leaders. From this point forward anyone
with the right conditioning could have access to the once before elite club of naturally gifted leaders. In
other words, leaders are made not born.

The behavioural theories first divided leaders in two categories. Those that were concerned with the tasks
and those concerned with the people. Throughout the literature these are referred to as different names,
but the essence are identical.

Associated Theories
 The Managerial Grid Model / Leadership Grid : At conception, the managerial grid model was
composed of five different leadership styles. These styles were a relation between a manager's
concern for people, concern for production and his motivation. The motivation dimension really
provides the underlying motive of the leader behind a successful leadership style. Thus the
managerial grid model categorizes leaders into one of 81 possible categories. Later, two additional
leadership styles were added as well as the element of resilience.
Leadership Styles Associated with Managerial Grid

The Indifferent or Impoverished (1,1)

These leaders have minimal concern for people and production. Their priority is to fly under the radar while
they content to seek solutions that won't bring any negative focus to themselves or their department.
Preserving their employment, position as well as their seniority is what drives their elusive and evading
behaviors. In short, the indifferent leaders are ineffective and are sorely lacking in any of the traits that can
be attributed to successful and effective leaders.

Impact on employees:
 Employees have a high degree of dissatisfaction
 No harmony within the group

 High turn over

Impact on organization:
 Inefficient operation

The Country Club or Accommodating (1, 9)

These leaders will go above and beyond to ensure that the needs and desires of his employees are met.
These leaders are making the assumption that their staff will yield maximum results as they are likely to be
self-motivated when they are lead in such environment. These leaders will have behaviours that will yield
and comply with the needs of their staff. The productivity of the group however, can suffer from the lack of
attention on tasks.
Impact on employees:Employees are Happy, Good team harmony

Impact on organization:Low productivity

The Status Quo or Middle-of-the-Road (5, 5)

These leaders balance out the needs of their staff with those of the organization, while not adequately
achieving either. These leaders will balance and compromise their decisions, often endorsing the most
popular one. They dedicate minimal efforts towards facilitating the achievements of their staff or the
production results in average or below average levels.

Impact on employees:Employees are not really discontent nor are they happy, Good harmony within
the group

Impact on organization:Average performance

The Dictatorial or Produce, Perish or Control (9, 1) Similar to autocratic leader

These leaders focus all of their attention to production-related matters and very little towards the needs of
their employees. These leaders will direct and dominate while holding the belief that efficiency gains can
only be achieved through rigid disciplines especially those that don't require human interaction. Employees
are considered expendable resources. Productivity is usually short lived as high employee attrition is
unavoidable. The dictatorial style is inspired by the McGregor X theory.

Impact on employees:
 Employees experience a high level of dissatisfaction
 High level of conflict within the group

Impact on organization:
 High employee turnover
 Peak performance is short lived

The Sound or Team (9, 9)

According to Dr. Robert R. Blake and Dr. Jane Srygley Mouton (and I agree), the sound leader is the most
effective leadership style. These leaders will contribute and are committed, can motivate and are motivated
while holding the belief that trust, respect, commitment and employee empowerment are essential for
fostering a team environment where team members are motivated, thus resulting in maximum employee
satisfaction as well as the most efficient productivity. This sound leadership style is also inspired by the
McGregor Y theory.

Impact on employees:
 Employees are forming a highly cohesive team
 Employees are satisfied
  Employees are motivated and work as a team

Impact on organization:
 Low employee turnover
 Attracts highly skills employees

 Efficient organization

The Opportunistic Style or OPP (Any of the 5 Positions)

These leaders, as the name suggests will seek any situation that will be of benefit to themselves. They will
adopt any style that will increase the likelihood of reaching their objective. They will exploit and manipulate
in order to persuade others. Any means is acceptable for securing personal benefits; gaining support is only
a secondary concern. These leaders are a prime example of "The end justifies the means."

The Paternalistic Style or PAT: Migrates from (1, 9) tor (9, 1)

These leaders will guide their employees and define initiatives for others and themselves. They will praise
and reward employees for good performance. They will, however, discourage any thinking that is contrary
to their own.
 Role Theory: Role theory refers to the explanation of what happens when people are acting out
social processes and the consequences of their doing so. Each person is an actor representing a
typical individual in a real life scenario performing within a specific context and a set of functions
with which are associated norms, expectations, responsibilities, rights, and psychological states. A
role is a place in a model and the participant acts out a situation in the same manner that a person
in real life would respond in that same situation. A modern rendition of the term is "avatar", used in
gaming theory and modeled realities, such as "Second Life". The person in role modeling usually
inserts their own personality through a representative in accordance with the way she or he
interprets appropriate responses.

The essence of role theory is to provide a model of behavior in a specific situation. A person assuming the
character and activities of a person in a real situation will perform as if the situation were real. This is not
unlike what actors do in a play. In fact, "play acting" often is used to describe role-playing. Role-playing
became extant in sociological literature in the second decade of the 20th Century and the theories
surrounding it evolved into behaviorism as has been represented by psychologists such as B.F. Skinner. Role
theory has the following major components:
1. Some principle functions of role-playing are conflict resolution and discovering details of a
manifested behavior or the nature of a role. For example, a social function may provoke a person to
exhibit a certain type of behavior, but having the person act out specific activities may bring out
minutiae that a general description of those activities might not. Another example of the efficacy of
role-playing is that a mere description of an activity may not reveal details presented by acting out.
2. Role-playing helps elucidate social positions in education, economics, science and government,
among many categories. Describing the activities of a teacher, for example, often cannot capture
the details a teacher has to handle in an actual activity.
Contingency Theories (1960's)

The Contingency Leadership theory argues that there is no single way of leading and that every leadership
style should be based on certain situations, which signifies that there are certain people who perform at the
maximum level in certain places; but at minimal performance when taken out of their element.

To a certain extent contingency leadership theories are an extension of the trait theory, in the sense that
human traits are related to the situation in which the leaders exercise their leadership. It is generally
accepted within the contingency theories that leader are more likely to express their leadership when they
feel that their followers will be responsive.

Associated Theories
 Fiedler's contingency theory

Fiedler's contingency theory is one of the contingency theories that states that effective leadership depends
not only on the style of leading but on the control over a situation. There needs to be good leader-member
relations, task with clear goals and procedures, and the ability for the leader to mete out rewards and
punishments. Lacking these three in the right combination and context will result in leadership failure.
Fiedler created the least preferred co-worker (LPC) scale, where a leader is asked what traits can be
ascribed to the co-worker that the leader likes the least. As an example [1]:

Uncooperative 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Cooperative
Unfriendly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Friendly
Hostile 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Supportive
Guarded 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Open
........ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ........

Fiedler's contingency theory is a qualification or type of contingency theory. Contingency theories in

general state that the effectiveness of leadership depends upon the situation, and there are numerous
factors, such as the nature of the task, leader's personality, and make-up of the group being led. For a more
comprehensive discussion of contingency theories in general, see Contingency Theories.

To provide meaning to Fiedler's contingency theory it is necessary to focus on at least one aspect of the
leader-led situation, although such a focus only highlights an issue, rather than giving a complete
description of the situation.

Fiedler's contingency theory emphasized the leader's personality, or psychological disposition, is a main
variable in her/his ability to lead, and said that how the group receives the leader, the task involved, and
whether the leader can actually exert control over the group are the three principle factors that determine
how successful the leader-led arrangement will be. Thus, the values from the least preferred co-worker
(LPC) are added and then averaged to produce the score. A high LPC score, as can be seen from the
example, exhibits a positive orientation towards human relations. S/he gets along with people. The nature
of the task is less important and issues in doing it may be compensated for with good human relations.
When the environment is such that each group member is independent, such as in a scientific setting, tasks
may not be all that well defined, and a leader must rely more on her or his personality to accomplish goals.

On the contrary side, the low LPC score, the respondent relies on the nature of the task to drive leadership.
The task has to be well defined or manageable, or the leader will be in trouble. In natural disasters or
survival situations, tasks are not always well defined or prioritized well. Human relations are vital. A classic
scenario is depicted in William Golding's Lord of the Flies, where kids are stranded on a deserted tropical
island and ultimately fall into fighting with each other. While they are youth, they exhibit many basic
human qualities that emerge under duress. Situations, where tasks are structured such as in most blue
collar environments or the military, a personable leader isn’t as much of a required. Orders come to "do it,
or else", and while cultivating a following based on personality never hurts, it is not a requisite, except
when authority becomes overbearing, such as in tyrannical situations.

Leaders who have a low LPC scoring (task-oriented) are effective, regardless of whether the factors are
highly favorable or not. Also, they will act in a more assertive manner. With high LPC scores (relations-
oriented) are more effective when the three factors are middle-of-the-road. Fiedler claimed that the LPC
scores could be used to identify the appropriate leader for a situation. If a leader is able to control the tasks
to be done, leader-led situations, and have power, the leader can create a favorable leadership
environment.
 Hersey-Blanchard Situational Leadership Theory

Situational Leadership Theory is really the short form for "Hersey-Blanchard Situational Leadership Theory"
and draws major views from contingency thinking. As the name implies, leadership depends upon each
individual situation, and no single leadership style can be considered the best. For Hershey and Blanchard,
tasks are different and each type of task requires a different leadership style. A good leader will be able to
adapt her or his leadership to the goals or objectives to be accomplished. Goal setting, capacity to assume
responsibility, education, and experience are main factors that make a leader successful. Not only is the
leadership style important for a successful leader-led situation but the ability or maturity of those being led
is a critical factor, as well. Leadership techniques fall out of the leader pairing her or his leadership style to
the maturity level of the group.
Discussion

The Hersey-Blanchard Situational Leadership Theory has two pillars: leadership style and the maturity level
of those being led. To Hersey and Blanchard, there leadership styles stem from four basic behaviors,
designated with a letter-number combination:
 S-1 Telling
 S-2 Selling

 S-3 Participating

 S-4 Delegating.

The leadership style, itself, manifests itself as behavior related to the task and behavior as to relationship
with the group. "Telling" behavior simply is a unidirectional flow of information from the leader to the
group. Do this task in this manner because of [whatever] at this location, and get it finished by [whenever].
Transactional leadership techniques operate here. In the "selling" behavior, the leader attempts to convince
the group of that the leader should lead by providing social and emotional support to the individual being
convinced. There is two-way communication, but it is clear that the leader is leading. With "participating"
behavior, the leader shares decision making with the group, making the system more democratic. There is
less of an emphasis on accomplishing an objective than building human relations. The fourth type of
behavior in leadership style, "delegating" is reflected by parceling out tasks to group members. The leader
still is in charge but there is more of an emphasis on monitoring the ones delegated with the tasks.

Four maturity levels of the group are posited by Hersey and Blanchard with letter designations:
 M-1: basic incompetence or unwillingness in doing the task
 M-2: inability to do the task but willing to do so

 M-3: competent to do the task but do not think they can

 M-4: the group is ready, willing, and able to do the task.

Each type of task may involve a different maturity level, so a person with an overall maturity level of M-3
might be only an M-1 with respect to specific work.

According to Hersey, ability level and willingness to do work can be cultivated by a good leader by raising
the level of expectations. Blanchard overlays four permutations of competency-commitment, again, with a
letter designation:
 D1 - Low competence and low commitment
 D2 - Low competence and high commitment

 D3 - High competence and low/variable commitment

 D4 - High competence and high commitment

Path-goal theory
The path-goal theory, path-goal theory of leader effectiveness, or path-goal model can be
considered as a variant on Transactional Leadership Theory, where the leader clearly is directing
activity and the only factor that varies is the manner in which this is done. There are some aspects of
Contingency Theory, as well, where various means of application vary with the situation. The leader
sees a path that needs to be tread, one leading to the accomplishment of a goal and she or he
attempts to clear it and get the group members to tread on it. The leader may cajole, command,
reward or punish, get suggestions from the group, or sugar coat the tasks, if necessary, but it is clear
that democracy is not the hallmark of this method.

Discussion

One could refer to the Path-Goal Theory as a leadership participation method, where the leader
does what she or he can to clear a path for group members to act. This is done by delineating clearly
what is to be done, removing obstacles, and rewarding those who perform well. The levels in
intensity a leader may do these things will vary according to the circumstances. The follower may be
more motivated or capable, or the work to be done could be easy or difficult. Leadership styles in
this method can vary from being dictatorial to the leader being a participant. House and Mitchel say
that these styles include support, directive, participative, and achievement-orientation [2]. A leader
facilitates the group by appealing to a group member's self-esteem and making the task enjoyable,
or at least palatable. A leader simply may direct the group to do the task, as Transactional Theory
would have it. With a Contingency Theory approach, at some points, a leader may engage in a
participative leadership style, where she or he takes suggestions from the group on how to do work.
This assumes the members are knowledgeable. A leader may set standards, goals and urge the
group to attain them. This style is used usually used for task that are more complex. Whatever the
case, the assumption is that the leader knows what is best in the way of accomplishing something. It
also assumes that the leader is rational and that there are ways that positively can work for a
situation. In a 1996 a re-formulation of the theory - definitely more Contingency Theory oriented,
House stated, that "...leaders, to be effective, engage in behaviors that complement subordinates'
environments and capabilities in a manner that compensates for deficiencies and is instrumental to
subordinate satisfaction and individual and work unit performance" [3]. House stated that people
are trapped in using existing measurements of social phenomena, and "we get trapped in our own
paradigms" because these models simply are available. He admits that there have been no tests of
specifically of any theory of how a leader's behavior affects followers. The 1996 theory expands to
eight classes of leader behavior that he says will help leadership performance. In addition, the
behavior can be substituted for each other, depending upon circumstances. House adds ways the
group members can be empowered through delegation of authority and work facilitation
(developing task autonomy). There is an enhanced group decision process and interaction among
members. House talks of value-based leadership that motivates workers to achieve their goals and is
justified if it enhances their performance [4].

Vroom-Yetton-Jago decision-making model of leadership

 The Vroom-Yetton-Jago Decision-making Model of Leadership focuses upon decision making as how
successful leadership emerges and progresses. The parameters shaping a decision are quality,
commitment of group or organization members, and time restrictions. There are a number of
leadership styles ranging from authoritarian to highly participatory. In 1988, Vroom and Jago
created a mathematical expert system as a decision-making device in their work Leadership and
Decision Making. This addition of Jago renamed the original theory to the theory, with its variants
being Vroom-Yetton, Vroom-Jago, and Vroom-Yetton-Jago.

Discussion

The central focus of the Vroom-Yetton-Jago Decision-making Model of Leadership is to assess how
the nature of the group, leader, and situation determine the degree to which the group is to be
included in the decision-making process. This is accomplished by a flowchart-style decision making
procedure that arrives at a style of decision-making. These styles are autocratic, consultative, and
group. The autocratic essentially is a dictator, taking her or his cue from Transactional Leadership
methods, which, in essence say that the leader tells the group, "obey". The consultative approach
has the leader going to the group for suggestions on how to carry out tasks. The "group" method of
decision making is the most democratic, where the group ultimately makes the decision.

The theory states that there can be many styles of leadership and no one type fits all situations, thus
making this a Contingency Theory. A leader sizes up a situation, assesses the situation facing the
group, determines how much support the group will give to the effort, and then effect a style of
leading. There is a mechanical process to do this involving seven questions and decision points. An
interactive version of the model is provided below. I would however caution anyone who uses it to
use good judgment with regards to the recommended style to use.

THE VROOM-JETTON-JAGO-DECISION MODEL

1. Is the quality of the decision important? Yes  No

From this emerges a decision making style or leadership style, as indicated by the following. A leader asks
what decision was made and how it was made, backtracking through the steps in making it and then to the
original problem and how to solve it. The following is a standard chart displaying the range of decision-
making modes.

Leadership
Description
Style
Using an autocratic style of leadership, the leader will make the decision by himself or
Autocratic (A1)
herself, using the information readily available.
Using a less stringent autocratic leadership style, the leader will consult the group members
Autocratic (A2) to gain more informations, then will make the decision himself or herself. The final decision
may or may not be shared with the group.
Consultative Using a consultative leadershi style, the leader will consult individuals to seek their opinion.
(C1) The leader will make the decision himself or herself.
Consultative Using a consultative leadership style, the leader will consult the group to seek individual
(C2) opinions and suggestions. The leader will make the decision himself or herself.
Collaborative Using a collaborative leadership style, the group will make the decision. The leader will play
(G2) a supportive role to ensure that everyone agrees on the decision.

Cognitive Resource Theory

The Cognitive Resource Theory main claim is that various sources of stress are blocking the use of
rationality in leadership. The more cognitively acute and experienced a leader is, the more she or he
is able to overcome the effects of stress. Command, though, is the factor that overcomes the effects
of stress. As for experience is the main factor enabling leadership under stress. Intelligence is more
effective in less stressful situations. However, the leader's ability to think is more effective when her
or his style is more orderly, premeditated and authoritarian. If the leader is similar to the average of
a group, effective leadership will come from consensus-oriented approaches. In terms of objectives,
the less complicated the tasks a group needs to do, the less of a need there is for an intelligent and
experienced leader.

Foundations of the theory

Fiedler's 1967 Contingency Model, from which the Cognitive Resources Theory arose, asserted that
leadership style depends upon the situation in which there needs to be a leader. However, people
who are task-oriented tend to view person's worth in terms of what is to be done. Those persons
who emphasize the importance of human relations tend to view co-workers more favorably. These
factors evidence why, for Fiedler, there is no ideal leader; every situation is different.

For many years Frederick Taylor's single model of leadership insisted that tasks can be managed if
they were meticulously quantified in terms of efficiency. His time studies in the early part of the last
century were precursors to contemporary methods of monitoring a worker's every move, such as
counting how many keystrokes are made in a set period of time as a mark of efficiency.

Fiedler states that it is against common sense to say that intelligence is not always important in
leadership. When stress is involved, something else is needed and this is the ability to command
forcefully. Intelligence leads to too much deliberation and indecisiveness when action in the face of
stress is required. Fred Fiedler states that a leader uses his or her intelligence to formulate
decisions, communicate to the group and then seek the support of the group. At any one of these
points, stress may block the process. If a leader has poor relationships with the group, stress is more
 effective in blocking leadership. Based on this, Fiedler predicts that intelligence will be more of a
factor when the stress level is low.

In all of this, effective communication is a must, and therefore must have clarity of purpose, scope
and expectations of a task. To task a group requires a leader to be what Fielder calls "directive".

Strategic Contingencies Theory :

With Strategic Contingencies Theory, a leader depends on his problem solving skills and a projective
personality that is center stage. The leader his so because she or he is in demand and others cannot
solve the problems the leader faces. This gives the leader bargainingpower. In that the leader cannot be
replaced easily, he or she is not easily displaced, especially by popular will. Social processes depend
upon the leader. Strike out the leader and the system is in danger of collapsing. The ability of one to
maintain leadership in a system through problem solving relies on the interconnectedness of system
units (department, divisions, etc.), social interaction, communications speed and system infrastructure
integrity.

Hickson on Strategic Contingency Theory

Uncertainty is a driving force in Hickson's writing. It is defined as "...lack of information about future
events so that alternatives and their outcomes are unpredictable" [Hickson, p. 5]. Power comes from
the ability to cope with uncertainty. Such ability reduces the uncertainty and persons and organizational
units become dependent upon it for survival. Here, at a subunit level of organization, the problem
solving status (in this case, the processing of requisitions) is a function of power. With all this, an
organization's units are reified as persons. Such units, if highly structuralized, mechanized and with well-
defined procedures can cope better and are more resilient to uncertainty. Regularity and perforce
allows for a greater prediction of events. A leader plies on this, using her or his problem solving ability
to impose regularity on uncertainty.

Hickson argues that if an organizational unit cannot substitute "obtain alternative performance", then it
becomes dependent upon the leader for the one solution she or he presents. This extends to
specialization, where if workers are confined to knowing only one subset of operations, a leader having
knowledge of all the operations has great control. The greater the scope of problem solving ability, the
greater power a leader has. Subunit power is a function of how many other units need that subunit. If
other departments of a factory depend on a daily basis for the Requisitions Department to act, the
latter has more than if requisitions were done, let's say on a monthly basis. Unit dependencies can
override uncertainties in assessing how much power exists. A greater dependency may be more
 important than the ability to problem-solve an uncertainty. Here is where the Strategic Contingency
Theory may not promote efficiency, functionality, or rationality [Hickson, p. 11]. That is, there may be
cases where it should not be used in developing leaders.

Discussion

Except for newly-arising groups, it may be asked what the residual effects of a previous leader are. This
would affect how receptive the group is to a leader and of what type. A stark example of this is has been
playing out in the Middle East, where a series of dictators have failed to solve problems and their
method of rule has been discredited as a result. If problems had been solved, at least in a minimally
acceptable way, the theory would suggest subsequent leadership styles of the same genre would be
accepted. To its credit, this has been shown to be the case in some authoritarian settings, such as with
various communist parties. Here, we must assess the degree of authoritarianism and what it ranges
over. Too, there is a threshold over which a leader cannot pass without a reaction and again, the Middle
East has been demonstrating this. To make a theory robust, quantifying these events would have
enormous value. We also have been discussing the Strategic Contingency for large scale systems. How
does it apply to small scale ones, such as a faculty senate?

Numerous factors bear close scrutiny of the Strategic Contingencies Theory. While Hickson discusses the
extent of authority and the actual use of it, as well as ranges of issues influenced by exertion of authority,
he doesn't settle on a definitive concept. Power is described within contexts. In a generic sense, power is
the ability to make others do your will, but there are many exhibitions and manners of it: psychological,
mesmeric, physical, intellectual, charisma, etc. Additionally, power and one's ability to exert it also depends
upon the one conforming to a will. Certain forms of power effective in one situation may be quite effective
an individual is susceptible; in others, it may make no difference. Power in one situation simply may not be
power in another. There is a measurement issue, as well. To what degree is power being exerted and how
effective is it? This would mean that a "before and after" situation would need description to assess a
power. Hickson alludes to these problems, but one is left with uncertainty about what power really is.

Transactional leadership Theories (1970's)

Transactional theories, also known as exchange theories of leadership, are characterized by a transaction
made between the leader and the followers. In fact, the theory values a positive and mutually beneficial
relationship.

For the transactional theories to be effective and as a result have motivational value, the leader must find a
means to align to adequately reward (or punish) his follower, for performing leader-assigned task. In other
words, transactional leaders are most efficient when they develop a mutual reinforcing environment, for
which the individual and the organizational goals are in sync.

The transactional theorists state that humans in general are seeking to maximize pleasurable experiences
and to diminish un-pleasurable experiences. Thus, we are more likely to associate ourselves with individuals
that add to our strengths.

Associated Theories
  Leader-member Exchange (LMX)

How a leader maintains leadership through working with her or his supporters, those entrusted with
responsibility and advisers defines the Leader-member Exchange theory as a method for exerting and
maintaining leadership.

Discussion

Leaders must garner and maintain their leadership position and the Leader-member Exchange theory states
that such persons work with associates, supporters, trusted persons with responsibility, advisers and other
"inner circle" to maintain her or his position. Another name for the theory is the "Vertical Dyad Linkage
Theory". The word "dyad" means "two", and the two refers to the leader and the others with whom she or
he works. "Linkage" defines the type of relationship; it is a connection that is maintained in the dyad.
Leaders assume their role by getting adherents. "VDL" refers specifically to a leader regarding followers
differently according to the degree of support they give. The more support a person gives to a leader, the
more she or he will become part of the leader's "inner circle". These adherents, of course, support the
leader, and it is this loyalty that the leader seeks to cultivate further. To reward this support, the leader
dispenses favors in the form of jobs, recognition, money, and access to opportunities.

Over time, roles may become formalized and the supporter may be brought into a formal role with more
power. However, the leader-subordinate relationship is preserved. At some point, there may be a conflict
of power, if the subordinate reaches a level of equal power. There may be conflicts concerning power
distribution and philosophies of leadership that can lead to a challenge to the leader. If there is disaffection
with the leader, often the subordinate is relegated to a lower status and in extreme cases is ousted from
the leadership circle. The strength of the relationship between the leader and members of the "inner circle"
varies with the nature of tasks faced, qualities of the members, integrity of the organization, support for the
organization, and so forth. The more those of the leadership circle work to support the leader, often the
more support, rank and responsibility they get. Each case has to be evaluated on its own merit.

The range of leaders can be from a person leading a small discussion group or a supervisor of a work crew,
to heads of countries or empires. The more complex the task and organization, the more factors enter into
the organizational dynamics.

3 Stages of Development

Formally, one can identify at least three stages of development in the Leader-member Exchange
relationship. First, there is the organizational stage, where a person rises from a group for various reasons.
There usually is a task that needs to be performed and the approaches of doing it range from anarchy to a
single person directing everything. This person rising from the rest of the crowd may have charisma,
intelligence or some quality that others recognize and see as desirable or essential for accomplishing the
task. There may be, of course, situations where there is no real task but persons are attracted to another
and are desirous to follow. In this case, the will to socialize for a sense of belonging or companionship are
prime motivators. Whatever the case, the leader-rest of the group forms.
A second stage of LMX occurs with role development. There are many origins, depending upon why the
group was formed. Group members may simply be mimicking other groups. Tasks usually define the types
of roles. Roles can be invented as rewards for favors done for the leader. The need for a division of labor
creates the need for roles, as a leader cannot do every aspect of a task. Here, a balance has to be achieved
between a leader's direct involvement in decision making and delegating work to others. An excess in either
direction can result in the micro management or dispersal of authority to the extent that a leader can lose
his or her leadership role. For the former, group members will chafe at being told what to do in the
minutiae of everyday life. If authority is delegated too much in quantity or too widely, challenges to
authority will arise, leadership will be diluted, and authority vaporizes.

Once a leader-led relationship is established, it becomes settled, and this is deemed the third stage of
development of the LMX. A number of factors can affix this relationship, as the expression "good old boy
network" adequately describes. Culture, social mores, economy, charisma, enormity of tasks an average
individual cannot handle are just some of the factors that can solidify leader-led relationship and maintain
them over time. Familiarity breeds contempt, and the more egregious routinized systems get challenged. In
extreme situations at the nation-state level, there are revolutions.

Transformational Leadership Theories (1970s)

The Transformational Leadership theory states that this process is by which a person interacts with others
and is able to create a solid relationship that results in a high percentage of trust, that will later result in an
increase of motivation, both intrinsic and extrinsic, in both leaders and followers.

The essence of transformational theories is that leaders transform their followers through their
inspirational nature and charismatic personalities. Rules and regulations are flexible, guided by group
norms. These attributes provide a sense of belonging for the followers as they can easily identify with the
leader and its purpose.

Associated Theories
 Burns Transformational Leadership Theory

Burns Transformational leadership Theory, in other words, Burns focuses upon motivations and values in
assessing how a leader approaches power. This aspect of having that basic ethical system sets leaders apart
from those merely aspiring to power. The first, where ethics is first, are people-centric and that latter are
ego centric. Gandhi and Castro would be the ones leading through morality and be transformational, while
Hitler and Stalin would represent the ego and be transactional. A transforming leadership is superseded by
a transcendent leadership, where the whole leadership process completely changes the character of an
individual from being a mere leader to one with a noble ethos, and that leader, accordingly brings the led
up into the same atmosphere. One may liken this process to that in Plato's Republic with the philosopher
queen/king , Gandhi, Buddha, or Christ. The people are led from the world of shadows and illusion to out in
the sunlight where truth presents itself in its own light. Hence, we have an evolution from the most
primitive, transactional, or bargaining, leadership, to transformational leadership, and finally to
transcendent leadership. The leader guides people with the existing values, goals, capabilities and other
resources the followers have through these stages of development. In the transcended individual, values
are not simply the underpinning of motives, but the values are internalized and are a part of the person.

Discussion

So many theories on leadership focus on two basic aspects: the goal of attaining and maintaining the status
of a leader, and the mechanics of doing so. Little, if any attention is paid to the reasons why or the ultimate
reason why anyone would ever want to become a leader, Burns Transformational Leadership Theory is of
course an exception. The problem stems as far back (and probably further) to the time of Plato 2500 years
ago, when Thrasymachus, a rhetorical theorist and Chalcedonian sophist, stated that "might makes right".
Leaders who could assert dominion by force were right in doing so, one method being be called today
"Transaction Theory". Socrates, argued that there is something higher, that humanity isn't here on this
planet simply to exist but to do the best that s/he is capable, seek wisdom. This sets the human species
apart from the rest.

James MacGregor Burns (1918) is a presidential biographer and asserted in his book Leadership that
leadership happens in three circumstances:

Leadership over human beings is exercised when persons with certain motives and purposes
mobilize, in competition or conflict with others, institutional, political, psychological, and other
resources so as to arouse, engage, and satisfy the motives of followers... in order to realize goals
mutually held by both leaders and followers....

 Transformational leadership occurs when one or more persons engage with others in such a way that
leaders and followers raise one another to higher levels of motivation and morality.
 That people can be lifted into their better selves is the secret of transforming leadership and the moral
and practical theme of this work. 
Burns was a combatant in World War II and realized that when people talked of leadership they
emphasized the qualities of the officers but rarely paid attention to the soldiers. However, he saw that the
most effective fighting units were those where, in the absence of the officers, leadership was found within
the ranks. Historians exaggerate the roles of officers and ignore that within the led . "Leadership is
followship, and followship is leadership", and leaders are created from the followers [2]. Transformational
and transforming are different. Leadership should be about mobilization and developing leaders.
Transformational and transactional leadership are different. As an example, Burns refers to Franklin D.
Roosevelt (FDR) as both a fox and a lion, a fox with respect to deceiving people in accomplishing critical
objective and a lion in being able to gain a personal following FDR did not develop organized support from
the Democratic Party but neglected it, leaving it disrupted in 1945. Transactional leadership consists of
brokerage, where parties work out differences Transformational leadership is conflict driven, where leaders
have to make enemies in order to show that change has occurred. Franklin D. Roosevelt was able to
demonstrate this with the programs such as social security [3].
Leaders pilot people by assessing their needs, as in Maslow's scale and Kohlberg's moral stages. Abraham
Maslow postulated a scale of values that people have ranging from physiological needs (the most basic) to
self actualization (the most complex) that includes creativity, ethics, and personal development [4].
Lawrence Kohlberg set forth , taking after Jean Piaget's stages of childhood growth, six successive stages of
moral growth that fell into three groups: preconventional morality, conventional morality, and post
conventional morality. The standards by which growth is measured center on the development of a good
society that is democratic and just [5].

Burns' hierarchy of values has "public values" at the top. With respect to the U.S., while there is no
particular form to American values - just a collection of various ones, there is drawn from the Western
philosophy of enlightenment the basic values of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. These were
championed by the signers of the Declaration of Independence. The order is correct. Life is first, followed by
liberty that circumscribes the type of life to be led. Both of these are needed to attain happiness . Equality is
essential to pursuit of happiness. Each of these values modifies the other, as in life being modified by
liberty. Equality then is after liberty. Underpinning this hierarchy are basic public ethical values. Private
values have the least historical impact [6].
 Bass Transformational Leadership Theory

As the word "transformation" suggests, Bass Transformational Leadership Theory is one of a set of various
Transformational Leadership Theories. More information of a general nature about these can be found in
the article Transformational Theories. Burns originally said that leaders can transform the life of followers
by altering their perceptions, aspirations, expectations, values, and so forth. Qualities within the leader her
or himself are behind the changes. The leader demonstrates, communicates, and does whatever it takes to
get the audience see a vision and exhort them to do things. Bass main contribution in 1985 to Burns'
original theory was describing psychological mechanisms and setting forth ways of measuring the efficacy of
the Bass Transformational Leadership Theory.

Discussion

The Bass Transformational Leadership Theory, Bass in other words, was interested in the extent to which a
leader influences followers. Followers go after a leader because of trust, honesty, and other qualities and
the stronger these are, the greater loyalty they have for the leader. The leader transforms the followers
because of her or his having these qualities. Not only is the leader a role model but she or he exhorts the
following to challenging the existing order, the revolutionary being a stark example of this. While the leader
may have democratic motives in mind, s/he can assume a Transaction Leadership style at the same time,
directing the followers to do things. Bass saw these aspects of transformational leadership:
1. Individual consideration, where there is an emphasis on what a group member needs. The leader
acts as a role model, mentor, facilitator, or teacher to bring a follower into the group and be
motivated to do tasks.
2. Intellectual stimulation is provided by a leader in terms of challenge to the prevailing order, task,
and individual. S/he seeks ideas from the group and encourages them to contribute. learn, and be
independent. The leader often becomes a teacher.
 3. Inspiration by a leader means giving meaning to the follows of a task. This usually involves providing
a vision or goal. The group is given a reason or purpose to do a task or even be in the organization.
The leader will resort to charismatic approaches in exhorting the group to go forward.

4. Idealized influenced refers to the leader becoming a full-fledged role model, acting out and
displaying ideal traits of honesty, trust, enthusiasm, pride, and so forth.

The "Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire" (MLQ) has been created to survey leadership factors. The
current (2011) version, MLQ5x [1] measures characteristics of passive as well as leaders who actively
attempt to make their followers leaders.

According to the National Institutes of Health, there were reports of inconsistent results concerning the
accuracy of the "Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire" (MLQ) Subsequent research on Finnish nurses in
2002 incicated that the test seemed to be internally consistent with respect to the leadership subscales
(factors) and the "Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire is a highly suitable instrument to measure
multidimensional nursing leadership [2]. "
 Kouzes and Posner's Leadership Participation Inventory

A survey was developed and published by James Kouzes and Barry Posner in their book, The Leadership
Challenge (Jossey Bass Publishers, 2002), that asked persons what characteristics of a leader they admire
and would cause them to follow. From this came the Leadership Participation Inventory. In somewhat of a
jocular sense, it follows the Boy Scout's list of traits befitting a model scout and is a list, major components
of which many person could present without much thought. Kouzes and Posner discuss five characteristics
they deem essential for successful leadership. Role model, inspiration, facing adversity, getting others to
act, and generating enthusiasm to act.

Discussion

The five characteristics for successful leadership

A good leader turns observers into doers.

1. Role Model: A leader needs to be an exemplar, initiating action and presenting her or himself as a
paradigm case of what a person should be and how actions should be performed.
2. Inspiration: The others need to feel that they should follow; they need to be inspired but with a
goal. They need to see that there is a desired endpoint to their actions. Leaders may intellectualize a
situation but they have to be able to stand firm in the face of adversity.

3. Facing Adversity: She or he cannot be deterred or wither. Courage is a hallmark of good leadership.

That is a main feature that others see in a good leader. Often a leader will have to be creative, and it
is this creation that sets a person off from the humdrum of those who follow.

4. Empowerment: Getting others to act! Conveying a sense of empowerment to the others

5. Generates Enthusiasm: A vital component of leadership not only getting others to act, but they
need to act with passion.